Virtual Teams in Higher Education : A Handbook for Students and Teachers [1 ed.] 9781681232645, 9781681232638

Citation preview

Virtual Teams in Higher Education: A Handbook for Students and Teachers

Virtual Teams in Higher Education: A Handbook for Students and Teachers

Madelyn Flammia Yvonne Cleary Darina M. Slattery

INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING, INC. Charlotte, NC • www.infoagepub.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Flammia, Madelyn, author. | Cleary, Yvonne, author. | Slattery, Darina M., author. Title: Virtual teams in higher education : a handbook for students and teachers / Madelyn Flammia, Yvonne Cleary, Darina M. Slattery. Description: Charlotte, NC : Information Age Publishing, Inc., 2016. | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2015029965| ISBN 9781681232638 (hbk.) | ISBN 9781681232621 (pbk.) | ISBN 9781681232645 (ebk.) Subjects: LCSH: Virtual work teams--Study and teaching (Higher) | Multiculturalism--Study and teaching (Higher) Classification: LCC HD66 .F585 2016 | DDC 658.4/0220711--dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015029965

Copyright © 2016 Information Age Publishing Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America

CONTENTS

Foreword: Considering Virtual Teams in the Context of Higher Education ....................................................................... vii Kirk St. Amant P A R T

I

INTRODUCTION TO VIRTUAL TEAMWORK 1.

Introduction ............................................................................................... 3

2.

Developing the Skills Needed to Succeed in Virtual Teams ............... 15 P A R T

I I

ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES OF VIRTUAL TEAMWORK 3.

Addressing Communication Challenges ............................................... 25

4.

Addressing Technology Challenges ....................................................... 45

5.

Addressing Management Challenges .................................................... 57

6.

Addressing Cultural Challenges............................................................ 85 v

v

•

VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

P A R T

I I I

GUIDELINES FOR STRUCTURING SUCCESSFUL VIRTUAL TEAM PROJECTS 7.

Best Practices for Participants in Virtual Teams .............................. 121

8.

Best Practices for Faculty Conducting Virtual Team Projects ........ 131

9.

Understanding Virtual Teams as Communities of Practice ............. 143 References .............................................................................................. 157

APPENDICES 1.

A Case Study of Virtual Team Collaboration .................................... 175

2.

Resources ............................................................................................... 187 Subject Index ......................................................................................... 197

FOREWORD

CONSIDERING VIRTUAL TEAMS IN THE CONTEXT OF HIGHER EDUCATION Kirk St. Amant

Effective education generally encompasses two factors: Exposure and interaction. Exposure involves the new and focuses on introducing individuals to ideas and concepts with which they are unfamiliar. Interaction involves encouraging individuals to consider, experiment with, and apply new ideas in different ways. Accordingly, each new exposure expands what one knows, and each original interaction extends how a person views and applies ideas. As such, the limits to one’s education can be seen as tied to the range of exposures and interactions available to the individual. Historically, the confines of one’s educational experiences were connected to physicality. That is, until relatively recently, persons could only be exposed to and interact with that which was readily available in the place where they were located. As technology evolved, these limitations began to erode. Written texts and later mass media (e.g., radio, film, and television) gradually expanded the scale and the range of the new ideas individuals could access. But while exposure to information grew, interactions remained relatively limited. While one could now access a broad range of ideas from around the world via broadcast media, Virtual Teams in Higher Education: A Handbook for Students and Teachers, pages vii–x. Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

vii

viii

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

the ability to interact with others to explore these ideas remained limited to the physical spaces in which the individual lived. Thus, the ability to discuss and apply ideas remained restricted to that which was available only in one’s immediate physical location. ONLINE MEDIA FOREVER CHANGED THIS PARADIGM. By providing mechanisms for quickly and easily exchanging ideas and interacting with counterparts—literally—all over the world, online media expanded the exposure and the interaction components of education. Now, the scope of the ideas one could access was seemingly limitless. Likewise, the range of persons with whom one could interact included individuals from all over the world. As societies became more comfortable engaging via such technologies, new approaches to exposure and interaction began to emerge. It was the age of the virtual team—a time when persons from different locations could collaborate on a range of activities in cyberspace. And education soon became one of these collaborative endeavors. Today, online media allow persons dispersed across different regions and nations to discuss new ideas and engage in various projects in real time. These technologies also permit interactions that can shape learning in a variety of ways. As such, online media require instructors to continually re-think education in terms of broader exposure to new ideas and often global perspectives to interacting with them. Despite these factors, the objective of education remains providing individuals with meaningful learning experiences regardless of the spaces or the venues used. The challenge, however, becomes maximizing the advantages of such situations without overwhelming participants. And given the 4+ billion persons with online access around the world today, these items are increasingly complex and nuanced. In the end, success becomes a matter of understanding and addressing these challenges in meaningful ways and with well-conceived strategies. SO WHAT SHOULD ONE CONSIDER TO MAXIMIZE THE POTENTIAL OF VIRTUAL TEAMS IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS? To begin, there is the challenge of communication. The exposure aspect of education is dependent upon instructors effectively conveying—or communicating— new ideas to students from a range of backgrounds. Similarly, the interaction component of education often requires students to engage in a variety of communication-based undertakings when exploring new concepts in virtual teams. These interactions can include everything from discussing ideas to participating in exercises designed to foster interaction. In all of these situations, engaging in such communication can be difficult enough when done in a face-to-face setting. When extended to online contexts, the potential for miscommunication and misunderstanding only increases.

Contents Review •

ix

These problems are further complicated when individuals rely on different technologies to interact in online educational contexts. In some cases, issues can result from the limitations a given technology imposes on how individuals may exchange information and interact. In others, problems could result from using different technologies to participate in virtual team dynamics. And in yet others, disconnects could emerge as a result of varying perspectives on how and when to use media to interact. Thus, the technologies giving rise to virtual teams can create challenges in educational contexts. For these reasons, effective decision making can be crucial to successfully managing such teams. In virtual teams, issues relating to communication and technology can often be addressed through effective decision making by leaders. Yet management practices can also create their own challenges to dynamics in such teams. Central to these challenges are questions associated with establishing authority in such online groups. Who, for example, should have the decision-making power in such contexts? How should recognized decision makers use or delegate that authority? And what rules govern all interactors (and how are they enforced)? The answers to such questions are essential to fostering effective information exchange and meaningful interaction in online educational settings. They can, however, be contentious issues depending on the backgrounds and the expectations of the persons involved in virtual teams. Thus, challenges associated with communication, technology, and leadership are further complicated by another factor increasingly present in online interactions: culture. That is, online media allow instructors to open virtual educational teams to participants from around the world. All that is needed is Internet access. In fact, such global scope is often touted as a key advantage of virtual teams in educational contexts. Yet cultural differences related to communication patterns, technology use, and leadership expectations introduce a range of new and often unexpected challenges to these already complex online spaces. In this context, the more cultures involved in the virtual team, the more varied the expectations of team members can be, and the more complex the situation can become. Given the scope and the nature of these factors, the use of virtual teams in higher education seems like a daunting proposition. Yet it need not be. Successfully addressing the aforementioned challenges involves one central aspect: information. The idea is for educators to have access to information that can help them • Identify the challenges associated with educational undertakings in virtual teams • Understand what factors make an item or aspect a challenge in such contexts • Consider approaches for addressing such challenges effectively

.

x

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Resources that provide the information needed to achieve these objectives can be invaluable to educators and students alike. And the text Virtual Teams in Higher Education: A Handbook for Students and Teachers is one such resource. By organizing ideas into four thematic parts, Virtual Teams in Higher Education provides the reader with a more holistic mechanism for thinking about educational interactions in online contexts. The text’s first major section, for example, explains the need for developing different skills to share information successfully and interact effectively in virtual teams in higher education. The book’s next major section, in turn, provides a thoughtful examination and discussion of the challenges that can affect such virtual teams. In these discussions, the authors explain the general aspects of four central “challenge” areas (i.e., communication, technology, management, and culture) and examine nuanced aspects of how such factors can create problems in online contexts. In the book’s third major section, the authors present best practices individuals can use to facilitate information exchange and foster effective interactions in virtual teams in higher education. Then, in a final Appendix section, the authors use a case study to examine how the ideas covered in the text can converge in a given context. Through the discussion of this case, the authors illustrate how the challenges noted earlier in the text can cause problems. They also explain how the skills and best practices presented in the text can be applied to address such challenges effectively. This four-part approach thus introduces readers to new ideas, reviews connections among concepts, and examines how to apply new concepts and approaches in virtual team contexts. As a result, Virtual Teams in Higher Education is an effective resource educators should use to navigate the complexities of virtual teams in the modern educational context. The old adage states that knowledge is power. The text you are holding represents the embodiment of this idea. Through identifying and explaining the challenges associated with virtual teams, Virtual Teams in Higher Education provides readers with the knowledge needed to understand various contexts associated with virtual teams in higher education. By introducing skills and strategies related to addressing such challenges, this book empowers readers through strategies for successfully negotiating the problematic pitfalls associated with interactions in such contexts. As such, this text stands as an important resource that allows readers to reconsider online education in the present and plan for how such contexts might evolve over time. Virtual Teams in Higher Education therefore exemplifies the fundamentals of effective education, for it exposes readers to new ideas and provides mechanisms for applying—or interacting with—this information in meaningful ways.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to express our gratitude to all the individuals and organizations who contributed to the development and completion of this book. First, we would like to thank our colleague, Kirk St. Amant, for the initial idea and for his encouragement and support throughout the process. We also wish to thank everyone at Information Age Press, particularly George Johnson and Brittany Black. As part of our research, we had the opportunity to interview many professionals who work in and manage virtual teams. We would like to thank Jim Young and Mark Crowley, as well as all our anonymous interviewees, for sharing their insights, experience, and wisdom with us. We would also like to thank our institutions and colleagues for their support. Madelyn would like to thank her colleagues at the University of Central Florida, particularly Dr. Patrick Murphy and Dr. Kathleen Bell. Yvonne and Darina are grateful for the encouragement from colleagues in the School of Culture and Communication at the University of Limerick, and particularly from our Head of School, Dr. Tadhg Ó hIfearnáin. We also wish to acknowledge financial assistance received from the School of Culture and Communication Research Committee. We are especially grateful to our colleague Patricia Minacori of the Université Paris Diderot for the opportunity to collaborate with her and to have our students work with her translation students.

xii

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Finally, we would like to express our sincere appreciation to all of the students who have participated in our virtual team projects over the years. This book would not have been possible without their enthusiastic engagement with the challenges of virtual collaboration. We thank them all wholeheartedly.

DEDICATIONS

To my husband, Fred Klingenhagen, for his constant support, understanding, and patience. —Madelyn Flammia To my parents. —Yvonne Cleary To my husband, Paudie, and our wonderful little girls, Holly and Lauren. —Darina M. Slattery

PART I INTRODUCTION TO VIRTUAL TEAMWORK

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this book is to offer guidance to students participating in virtual team projects because virtual organizational structures are being used with increasing frequency by multinational corporations, small businesses, and nonprofit organizations. Students need to be prepared for the roles they will play in the virtual workplace. While the primary audience is college students, Chapter 8 offers advice and guidance to teachers who wish to structure virtual team projects for their students. This book came into being as the result of ten years of virtual team collaboration between students and teachers at the University of Limerick (UL) in Ireland and the University of Central Florida (UCF) in the United States. The authors have conducted ten virtual team projects in which students in the technical communication and e-learning program at the University of Limerick have collaborated with technical communication students at the University of Central Florida to develop documentation projects. In three of these projects, the UL and UCF students also collaborated with translation students at the Université Paris Diderot in France. Through these projects, the authors conducted research on the students’ use of technology, their communication strategies, the leadership structures and roles chosen by teams, the challenges faced by team members and ways they addressed those challenges, the students’ perceptions of what they learned from the experience, and what students would do differently in future projects. The findings of Virtual Teams in Higher Education: A Handbook for Students and Teachers, pages 3–13. Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

3

4

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

our research inform much of what we discuss in this book. We have included a case study in an appendix that describes one of our virtual team projects. Our experiences have shown us how rewarding virtual collaboration can be for both students and teachers. In this chapter, we begin by defining precisely what “virtual teams” are and then go on to discuss the benefits of virtual collaboration. Then we examine the challenges associated with virtual teamwork. Finally, we conclude by giving an overview of the rest of the book. DEFINING VIRTUAL TEAMS The term “virtual teams” refers to work groups composed of members who rely on computer-mediated communication to accomplish their goals. Often these teams collaborate across national, organizational, and disciplinary boundaries. Traditionally, a distinction was made between virtual teams and face-to-face, or collocated, teams; however, recently scholars have suggested that it is more appropriate to speak of degrees of virtualness of teams since nearly all teams rely to some extent on information and communication technologies (ICTs) to carry out their work, even those teams whose members all work together in the same physical location. Griffith, Sawyer, and Neale (2003) state that virtual teaming can be described along a continuum with variations in the extent of face-to-face work. However, most scholars and practitioners would agree that virtual teams are those teams who rarely, if ever, meet in person and whose primary means of communication is ICTs. Virtual teams communicate across time, space, and organization boundaries (Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004; Robey, Khoo, & Powers, 2000); they are often global in nature including members from many different cultures, some of whom are communicating with their teammates in a second or third language. Of course, some members of a team may be collocated while others are not; White (2014) states, “[A] virtual team exists where one or more members of the team make some or all of their contributions from a different location and/or a different time zone and/or a different national culture than other members of the team” (p. 111). In some cases these teams will come together to work on one project of a short duration, while in other cases they may have ongoing collaborations that span years.

The Evolution of Virtual Teams As early as 1988, Zuboff predicted the rise of the virtual workplace in her landmark book In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power, when she stated, “The informated workplace, which may no longer be a ‘place’ at all, is an arena through which information circulates, information to which intellective effort is applied” (p. 395). Of course, virtual teams would not be possible without the advances in technology that have freed workers from being tied

Introduction • 5

to one “place” and have allowed them to communicate with colleagues across once-prohibitive boundaries of space and time. In 1998, Townsend, DeMarie, and Hendrickson described their vision of a new workplace that would result from advancements in information and communication technologies: “This new workplace will be unrestrained by geography, time, and organizational boundaries; it will be a virtual workplace, where productivity, flexibility, and collaboration will reach unprecedented new levels” (p. 17). The rise of the virtual workplace occurred at a time when many organizations were downsizing, flattening their organizational structures, and seeking to address the challenge of increased global competition (Boudreau, Loch, Robey, & Straud, 1998). According to Townsend, DeMarie, and Hendrickson (1998), several factors combined to cause organizations to begin moving from traditional face-toface teams to virtual teams: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The increasing prevalence of flat or horizontal organizational structures The emergence of environments that require interorganizational cooperation as well as competition Changes in workers’ expectations of organizational participation A continued shift from production to service/knowledge work environments The increasing globalization of trade and corporate activity (p. 18)

Many organizations saw virtual team structures as a way to cut costs while increasing productivity and the flexibility of the workforce. In 2002, Bell and Kozlowski described the increased use of new “[h]orizontal organizational structures and team-based work units” (p. 14) and commented on the “increasing emphasis on far-flung, distributed, virtual teams as organizing units of work” (p. 15). Although they were taking a step into the unknown, many corporations were eager to embrace the potential of these new virtual forms. They saw many benefits associated with transforming the workplace. Of course, as with any radical change, these new work structures also created new challenges. BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF VIRTUAL TEAMS There are many well-recognized benefits associated with virtual teams both for organizations and for individual team members. At the same time, there are also quite a few challenges associated with virtual teamwork both for team members and for the team leader. Benefits of Virtual Teams The use of virtual teams provides organizations with numerous benefits. A virtual organizational structure enables employers to select the best-qualified individuals to participate on a given project without the expense of travel or relocation. Teams can be composed of the employees who have the most experience

6

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

and expertise to carry out a particular task regardless of their geographic location. This flexibility has obvious benefits in terms of an organization’s ability to leverage its human resources for the greatest productivity and performance. When it is necessary to make staffing changes, team members can be reassigned more easily when their participation is virtual (Zaccaro & Bader, 2003). Additionally, in many geographically distributed teams, projects may be completed more quickly with 24-hour workdays created by the different schedules of the various team members around the world. Ideally, virtual teams can enhance information sharing and knowledge creation within an organization as dispersed individuals communicate and collaborate to achieve common goals and objectives. Individual team members may benefit from the experience of working with a dynamic and diverse group of colleagues (Snow, Snell, Davidson, & Hambrick, 1996). Also, some team members may appreciate the opportunity to work remotely since it allows them to avoid the inconvenience and stress of time-consuming travel. Because of their diverse composition, virtual teams may have enhanced decision-making abilities (Shachaf, 2008) and creativity (Ocker 2005, 2007). The ideas and expertise of individuals from various disciplines and cultures may lead to innovations that might not be arrived at by more homogenous work groups. Such teams have the potential to generate more ideas and to avoid the pitfalls of group-think (Chang, Chuang, & Chao, 2011). In fact, some research has shown that when teams experience task-related conflict—that is, conflict over approaches to a particular task, about objectives, and about the content of decisions—they may actually become more productive and creative if such conflict leads to constructive criticism and the sharing of ideas and information (Jehn, 1995). Task conflict can motivate team members to consider alternative solutions to problems and to view complex tasks from fresh perspectives. However, despite the recognized benefits of virtual teamwork for both organizations and team members, there are a great many challenges inherent in computer-mediated communication across cultures. Challenges of Virtual Teams The challenges faced by virtual teams can be organized into four categories: communication, technology, management, and culture. Of course, these challenges may be interconnected; for example, communication challenges may be related to cultural differences or to the use of a particular ICT. Communication Challenges Virtual teamwork would not be possible without information and communication technologies that enable remote collaboration. However, the reliance on technology for team communication as well as the global nature of many virtual teams can present many communication challenges. One often-noted challenge occurs when team members do not have the opportunity to engage in face-to-face

Introduction • 7

communication and, as a result, they do not have access to the nonverbal cues that carry much of the meaning in any communication encounter; communication scholars estimate that 60 to 65 percent of the information we receive in any given exchange is communicated nonverbally (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1996). Of course, some technologies like videoconferencing do provide nonverbal cues; these media are referred to as rich media because they offer a greater sense of personal connection than a lean medium such as email, which does not allow for visual cues or immediate feedback (Daft & Lengel, 1986). When team members must rely on technology for all their communication, particularly lean media, it may take them longer to develop social relationships and to establish trust (Sole & Edmondson, 2002). Trust is crucial to the success of virtual teams (Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002); in fact, in all the literature on virtual teamwork, trust is probably the topic most often written about because it is so important to every aspect of virtual collaboration. Trust will influence the commitment that members have to the team, their perceptions of their teammates, and their willingness to share information and knowledge (Cramton, 2001; Lin, Chiu, Joe, & Tasi, 2010). Ultimately, lack of trusting relationships can lead to conflict within the team and detract from the success of the collaboration (Chiu & Staples, 2013; Panteli & Sockalingam, 2005; Zakaria & Yusof, 2015). Trust is more likely to develop in those teams that establish communication at the beginning of the project (Chiu & Staples, 2013; Flammia, Cleary, & Slattery, 2010). Research has shown that the most successful teams are those teams that engage in social communication and self-disclosure from the start of the collaboration (Chiu & Staples, 2013). Additionally, having routines of communication that are consistent and predictable will greatly enhance a team’s success; routines of communication are guidelines for the team regarding when to communicate and which communication technologies to use for various types of communication (Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001). Typically, the selection of the technologies and guidance regarding their use will be provided by the team leader. Without a structured process for communication, team members may be working at crosspurposes and may feel isolated or frustrated when communication is inconsistent. Technology Challenges One challenge related to technology has already been mentioned: the distinction between lean and rich media. Although lean media do have some limitations, rich media are not always the best choice for virtual team communication. For example, although email is a lean medium, it may be preferable for team members who are not using their native languages because it gives them more time to develop and edit their messages, and thereby enhances the clarity of their communication (Warkentin, Sayeed, & Hightower, 1997). A team leader who must deliver negative feedback may choose to use email because of the lack of nonverbal cues and the resulting social distance. Both the team leader and the team member will

8

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

have the opportunity to take time to consider their communication with one another and the best way to express themselves (Sivunen & Valo, 2006). Given the number of ICTs available today, one significant challenge for teams will be the selection of the most appropriate media to use for different types of communication and for different phases of a project. Additionally, team members must have set procedures for how to use the technologies; for example, they must know when to use each technology, what type of information to share, and when to share it. Finally, it is vital that all team members have facility in using the technologies chosen for the team and have access to technical support for any problems (Huang, Kahai, & Jestice, 2010). Management Challenges As already noted when discussing communication and technology challenges, the team leader is responsible for establishing the structure of the team and for making many important decisions that will influence the functioning of the team and its effectiveness. Although leaders of collocated and virtual teams do face some of the same challenges, leaders of virtual teams are called upon to provide much more structure than leaders of face-to-face teams. Having routines of communication, guidelines for the use of technology, and many other procedures in place will greatly enhance a virtual team’s performance (Rice, Davidson, Dannenhoffer, & Gay, 2007; Scott, 2013). A team leader plays a crucial role in establishing a team’s culture by serving as a role model for team members, by communicating frequently and consistently, by creating clear guidelines for communication and technology use, and by structuring activities that will help members develop social relationships and build trust. Trust in teams is more likely to develop when the members perceive one another and their leader as reliable, sincere, and committed to the team’s success (Flammia, 2013). The leader of a team can greatly influence the values exhibited by team members (Scott, 2013) and can create a sense of mutual respect and obligation among team members (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). The leader of a virtual team is charged with many responsibilities at every stage in the life cycle of a virtual collaboration, from selecting the technologies the team will use and setting up a reward system or team incentives in the planning phase to recognizing the success of the team and debriefing individual team members during the wrap-up phase. Throughout the project, the leader will need to be alert to detect any early signs of task or relational conflict within the team. Lin et al. (2010) recommend that leaders take periodic surveys of the level of trust within the team. To be effective, leaders will need conflict management skills (Zaccaro & Bader, 2003). Virtual team leaders will also need to maintain strong lines of communication both with the team as a whole and with individual team members. They will serve as both mentors and coaches to the members of their team, providing guidance, inspiration, and constructive criticism as needed. In global teams, leaders

Introduction • 9

may face the challenge of having a 24-hour work day; that is to say, some team members will be working at any given point within a 24-hour period due to the geographically dispersed nature of the team. Cultural Challenges Members of global virtual teams may face many challenges related to cultural differences. Such differences may influence team members’ attitudes toward communication, knowledge sharing, leadership, and the status of team members (Janssens & Brett, 2006; Mockaitis, Rose, & Zettinig, 2012; Scott, 2013). The cultural beliefs of team members may also shape their attitudes toward participation within a team and toward relationship building and cooperation (Mockaitis et al., 2012). Team members from different cultures may also have varying approaches to using technology, and they may have different ideas about what type of information to share via which ICT. These cultural differences have the potential to impact the sharing of information and knowledge creation within an international team (Ang & Inkpen, 2008; Brewer, 2010). Effective communication, knowledge creation, information sharing, and relationship building are all vital to the success of virtual collaboration; therefore, team leaders must find ways to address cultural differences that might affect the participation of team members from diverse cultures. Even when team members are motivated to participate and share information, communication challenges related to cultural differences may arise. When team members must rely on lean media, there may be cultural misunderstandings because of the lack of nonverbal cues (Furamo & Pearson, 2006; Watson-Manheim & Belanger, 2002). Differences in communication styles across cultures are another potential source of challenges; some cultures are very direct in their verbal communication while others are much more indirect. Individuals using a direct style will state what they wish to say in a straightforward manner with no ambiguity, while individuals using an indirect style will be much more circular and will rarely say precisely what they actually mean. Such cultural differences may lead to miscommunication, frustration, or even offense, and have the potential to escalate into conflict within the team. The more diverse a team is, the more likely it is that divisions may develop within the group. It is natural for individuals to gravitate toward those colleagues who are similar to themselves either in terms of national culture or professional background. However, the formation of in-groups and out-groups has the potential to lead to the development of faultlines within the team; faultlines are divisions based on shared characteristics or background. One danger of these divisions is that they may lead to the perception that members of one’s in-group are superior to individuals outside the group; such stereotyping can seriously detract from a team’s performance. Cultural awareness and sensitivity can help prevent misunderstandings and conflict within teams. Giving team members training in intercultural communica-

10

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

tion prior to the start of virtual collaboration can go a long way toward creating a more unified and harmonious team. In a collaboration between business and engineering students in the Netherlands and accountancy students in Hong Kong, Vogel, Van Genuchten, Lou, Verveen, Van Eekout, and Adams (2001) found that the student teams whose members were particularly attuned and accommodating to aspects of national and professional culture had the most successful outcomes. Teams who are working across national boundaries and whose members are spread across several time zones are also likely to face several logistical challenges. For example, it may be difficult for teams to schedule any synchronous meetings without some team members having to work very late, get up very early, or possibly even get up in the middle of the night to attend a meeting. Different national holidays, vacation schedules, and other aspects of the availability of team members may also present challenges. Team leaders need to find ways to share any inconveniences among team members so that members in one location are not always the ones forced to compromise regarding scheduling. Despite the many challenges inherent in virtual team collaborations, the use of virtual teams is definitely on the rise (Leonard, 2011; Lockwood et al., 2010). Well-managed virtual teams have the potential to be much more effective than collocated teams and can lead to increased efficiency and better business results (Thompson & Caputo, 2009). Virtual teams are not only more productive and cost effective for organizations, but they also provide many benefits for employees. An article in the Ivey Business Journal suggests that one factor contributing to the increased use of virtual teams in business is actually driven by employee demand (Lekushoff, 2012); the article goes on to state that virtual teams benefit employers and employees equally. The remaining chapters in this book offer guidance for students participating in virtual teams and also for teachers seeking to structure projects for their students. Although the authors’ fields of study are technical communication and e-learning, the information presented is relevant to teachers and students across disciplines; our research and examples are drawn from a wide range of fields including business, the arts, the social sciences, the humanities, engineering, science, and technology. AN OVERVIEW OF THIS BOOK This book consists of three parts and two appendices. The first part of the book introduces virtual teamwork, and the second part discusses the challenges inherent in virtual teams and means to address them. The third part of the book offers guidelines for structuring and participating in virtual team projects. The appendices include a case study drawn from the authors’ collaboration and a large number of further resources to help both students and teachers.

Introduction •

11

Part I: Introduction to Virtual Teamwork Part I includes this introductory chapter and Chapter 2. Chapter 2 discusses the skills needed to succeed in virtual teamwork. Of course, some of the same skills are needed for both collocated and virtual teamwork, but the emphasis in the chapter is placed on the particular skills needed for virtual teaming. While some skills are more important for leaders than for other team members, students are encouraged to examine their existing skill sets and to think about the skills they will need to develop to succeed in virtual collaboration. A checklist is included that students can use to analyze their existing skills and to reflect on the skills they still need to develop. Part II: Addressing the Challenges of Virtual Teamwork Part II covers the four primary types of challenges that face participants in virtual team projects and offers suggestions for addressing these challenges. Part II consists of Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6. Chapter 3 discusses the many communication challenges that virtual team members face. These challenges include the need to establish trust early in the lifecycle of the project, the need to sustain effective communication throughout the project, and the need to establish clear guidelines for communication and knowledge sharing among all team members. Many virtual team projects fail because team members do not establish and maintain clear and effective lines of communication with one another. Often miscommunication can lead to duplication of effort, wasted time, missed deadlines, and conflict. This chapter offers specific suggestions for addressing the most common communication challenges faced by members of virtual teams. Chapter 4 presents the technology challenges that commonly occur within virtual teams. This chapter discusses the different types of communication and collaboration tools and the importance of technology selection and implementation. Team members must know when and how to use the various technologies at their disposal. Often, despite their familiarity with new technologies, students do not know how to use these technologies effectively and efficiently to achieve goals within a team setting. This chapter offers guidance on how to address technology challenges and how to use technology in the most effective manner. Chapter 5 examines the challenges that virtual teams are likely to face in relation to team management and leadership. An effective team leader can help team members address many of the other challenges they face—particularly those challenges related to communication and technology selection and implementation. This chapter offers students guidance drawn from research on virtual teams in the workplace and suggests ways that students can adapt professional management strategies to their own collaborations. By presenting both theoretical and practical advice, the chapter offers guidance to the student(s) selected to lead the team. Chapter 6 discusses the challenges that may arise in a virtual team related to cultural differences and intercultural communication issues. To function effec-

12

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

tively within a global virtual team, students need to have at least a basic understanding of intercultural communication. In global teams, challenges often arise in relation to different approaches to communication, knowledge sharing, and leadership. To work effectively with teammates from other cultures, students need to become aware of and sensitive to cultural differences that may impact their ability to communicate and collaborate with diverse others. Part III: Guidelines for Structuring Successful Virtual Team Projects Part III presents specific guidelines for students and teachers to help them structure and carry out successful virtual team projects. It includes Chapters 7, 8, and 9. Chapter 7 distills the information presented in the preceding chapters to offer a set of best practices for students participating in virtual teams. While some of the recommendations might seem more applicable to workplace settings (e.g., students do not always get to choose the technologies they use), students still need to be aware of best practices for virtual teamwork. In addition to crystallizing the guidance from the previous chapters, this chapter offers additional practical advice to help students conduct a successful virtual team project from start to finish. Chapter 8 offers a set of best practices for faculty members conducting student virtual team projects. These guidelines take the faculty members through all phases of the process, from the initial stages of finding colleagues with whom to collaborate to the final evaluation and assessment of the projects. The advice offered in this section is drawn not only from published research on the subject, but also from the authors’ work on numerous virtual team projects during the past ten years. Chapter 9 discusses how virtual team projects can function as communities of practice to enhance knowledge sharing and knowledge creation while also preparing students for the challenges of global citizenship. This chapter also discusses the challenges and benefits of e-learning. Appendices There are two appendices. The first is a case study that describes one of the virtual team projects the authors conducted with students in Ireland and the United States. The second is a list of resources for students and faculty members. Case Study The case study describes a virtual team project conducted by the authors. In this project, students from Ireland and the United States collaborated to produce technical documentation. The case study describes how the authors planned for the project, how they structured the student teams and developed the assignment, how they communicated with students and supported them during the course of the project, and how they evaluated the success of the project.

Introduction •

13

Resources The list of resources for faculty members who wish to conduct virtual team projects includes books, journal articles, websites, professional organizations, and collaborative software. A FINAL INTRODUCTORY WORD We hope that this overview of the book will help you to use it more efficiently, whether you read it from cover to cover or go straight to one chapter to help you address a particular issue or challenge. As teachers, we have found virtual collaboration for teaching and research to be an exciting and rewarding endeavor. We have also received a great deal of feedback from our students reporting on the value of the learning experience they gained from participating in virtual team projects; many students have also told us how much they enjoyed the opportunity to be part of a global virtual team with students in other cultures. To quote one student from a recent collaboration: I loved working in a virtual team. I do believe my group members added to my excitement working in a virtual team because they were great communicators and prompt. We had no issues regarding internal deadlines and each member produced great quality of work. I wish to work in a virtual team again. It was convenient and I believe it was not as stressful as working in a group in person.

Our goal in writing this book is to share our expertise and our enthusiasm regarding the challenging and rewarding endeavour of virtual collaboration. We hope that you find this book helpful as you begin, or continue on, your own journey into the virtual workplace.

CHAPTER 2

DEVELOPING THE SKILLS NEEDED TO SUCCEED IN VIRTUAL TEAMS

You need to be flexible and perhaps start your day earlier or log on later on at home to mitigate the negative effects of time zone differences. You need to overcome any natural tendency you might have towards shyness or reticence, and call people or talk on video as often as you can. Communication needs to be open and free flowing, and you need to get into the habit of informing all stakeholders of any changes they should know about. —Technical Writing Senior Supervisor at an international software company INTRODUCTION A collocated team comprises “individuals who work together in the same physical location and are culturally similar” (McDonough, Kahn, & Barczak, 2001, p. 111). These teams work towards a common goal. As we discuss in Chapter 1, a virtual team comprises people working together in geographically dispersed locaVirtual Teams in Higher Education: A Handbook for Students and Teachers, pages 15–22. Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing 15 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

16

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

tions, but also with a view to achieving a common goal (Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001). If team members span several countries, they are sometimes referred to as global virtual teams. Unlike collocated teams, virtual teams are often temporary in nature; they often comprise members from different cultures, nationalities, and possibly different organizations; they comprise members with intentionally varied skill sets; and they require technology to communicate (McDonough et al., 2001; Prasad & Akhilesh, 2002; Robey, Khoo, & Powers, 2000). Looking at these definitions more closely, it is evident that collocated and virtual teams share some characteristics, but they also differ in many ways. Lurey and Raisinghani (2001) found that the goals or objectives for virtual teams have to be even more explicit than for collocated teams because of the barriers associated with working virtually. Even though virtual teams are a far more complex phenomenon (Rutkowski, Vogel, van Genuchten, Bemelmans, & Favier, 2002), Hoegl, Ernst, and Proserpio (2007) observed that virtual teams can be more effective than collocated teams, provided members work well as a team. The next section examines the skills needed for members in virtual teams and why these skills are important. SKILLS NEEDED FOR VIRTUAL TEAMWORK Chapters 3 through 6 discuss four main challenges of virtual teamwork (communication, technology, management, and culture) in detail. Global virtual teams experience more behavioral and project management challenges than collocated teams (McDonough et al., 2001). Problems such as misunderstandings, delayed communication, and inability to adequately monitor performance are more pronounced when team members work virtually (Kayworth & Leidner, 2000). McDonough et al. (2001) found that global virtual teams tended to perform less well than collocated or face-to-face teams, most likely because of the various challenges team members encountered. Technology and the nature of virtual teamwork “have resulted in new requirements regarding the character, features and skills of the participants” (Tavcar, Zavbi, Verlinden, & Duhovnik, 2005, p. 557). For virtual teams to be successful, team participants must possess skills to communicate across cultures and to manage outcomes effectively, using various collaborative technologies. This section discusses the key skills needed by leaders and team members and why these skills are important. Leaders Leaders are essential for both collocated and virtual team projects. Without a leader, a project can miss deadlines and not produce the necessary deliverables. To ensure a successful outcome, a leader needs to be highly skilled in communication, technology use, and project management. He should also possess a deep understanding and awareness of intercultural communication issues. Kayworth and

Developing the Skills Needed to Succeed in Virtual Teams •

17

Leidner (2000) suggest creating workplace teams from complementary cultures to help them be more effective. While the leader is usually responsible for managing the whole project, she is also a team member and may therefore be required to fulfill certain other roles too (e.g., editing or quality assurance), particularly in smaller organizations where manpower resources may be limited. In some cases, such as in the case of student virtual teams, a leader might not officially be appointed; a leader might simply emerge as the project develops. Furthermore, an instructor—rather than a team leader—might assume responsibility for assigning leaders to teams. Tavcar et al. (2005) recommend that the leader possesses skills in the following areas: • Team management, which includes skills in task distribution, building trust, motivation, and project management • File management, which is essential to ensure that document control is maintained and that every team member is using the latest version • Technology, which includes the ability to select appropriate equipment and tools and to manage their use While team management and file management skills are also essential in collocated teams, technical skills are particularly important in virtual teams because virtual team members cannot communicate or collaborate without technology. Kayworth and Leidner (2000) recommend training team members in the various technologies and ensuring that the infrastructure is suitable in each country. Chapter 4 addresses the technology challenges that are commonly encountered in virtual teams. Leaders must also facilitate trust and team cohesion (Garrison, Wakefield, Xu, & Kim, 2010; Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001). One way to build trust is to select members who possess the necessary skills for virtual teamwork, ideally selecting members who have already been involved in successful virtual team projects and are therefore aware of the challenges inherent in them. Another consideration is to select members who will complement other members’ skills (Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001). Leaders should also help establish a “global culture” (Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001, p. 41) to help members develop greater cultural awareness (See also Chapter 6). If team members are only used to working in collocated teams, they might not be aware of cultural differences and nuances, and they might, unknowingly, cause offence to another teammate. As discussed in Chapter 6, cultural awareness can include knowledge of basic issues such as different styles of communication in different countries, as well as knowledge of religious and other differences. The next section discusses some features of behavioral adaptation that may need to take place amongst team members. Rather than focus on demographic or geographical differences of team members, leaders should highlight the “unique functional skills” of each team mem-

18

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

ber (Garrison et al., 2010, p. 41), so team members focus on skill sets and abilities rather than proximity or demographics. According to Lurey and Raisinghani (2001), leaders need to establish positive team processes and develop reward systems (e.g., by showcasing excellent work in a student setting). Leaders should also help members to establish goals as well as modes and frequency of communication because, without these goals and guidelines, a team will not communicate effectively. Finally, the leader should demonstrate a “high level of personal commitment” to the project, by incorporating some socioemotional communication as well as task-oriented communication (Garrison et al., 2010, p. 41). By demonstrating some of his personal traits and characteristics in day-to-day team activities, the leader will reach out to teammates and encourage other team members to do the same, thereby facilitating social presence, trust, and group cohesion (Garrison et al., 2010; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). Majchrzak, Rice, Malhotra, King, and Ba (2000) observed that one interorganizational team initially made changes to the organizational environment and group structures to resolve misalignments in the project (e.g., misalignments between communication preferences and technology availability) but later had to make changes to the collaborative technology structures also. They found that structural adaptations were necessary at several levels throughout the project to ensure a successful outcome. In the process, there was also a “shift from a hierarchical to a participative decision making structure” (Majchrzak et al., 2000, p. 589), and this impacted team roles, communication strategies, and information sharing. Throughout the project, leaders need to be able to adapt processes, structures, and technologies, if needed. In a related study about organizational teams, Susman, Gray, Perry, and Blair (2003) found that team members’ “collective ability to recognize and reconcile differences in interpretations, and reach agreement on appropriate action, depends on the degree of trust and openness within the team” (p. 156). Without open communication and trust between team members, it will be difficult to identify problems quickly and to rectify those problems in a swift and amicable manner. Hoegl et al. (2007) noted that the effectiveness of leaders decreases as team members become more dispersed. On a related note, Tavcar et al. (2005) state that “remote work demands independence, reliability and initiative” on the part of team members (p. 557). It might even be necessary for dispersed team members to share the leadership role. Therefore, for a virtual team to perform successfully, the quality of teamwork is critical (Hoegl et al., 2007). The next section discusses the skills and traits that team members should ideally possess. Some of these skills can be learned (e.g., technical skills), whereas others are inherent in certain individuals (e.g., optimism).

Developing the Skills Needed to Succeed in Virtual Teams •

19

Other Team Roles Depending on the nature of the project and organization, team member roles may vary considerably. For example, in a documentation team, typical team roles may include a project manager, technical writers, editors, graphic designers, audiovisual personnel, subject-matter experts, and quality assurance personnel (Lee & Owens, 2000). In a new product development team, on the other hand, roles may include a leader, 3D modelers, researchers, designers, and prototype developers (Tavcar et al., 2005). Tavcar et al. (2005) identified skills that are needed for effective communication and work in virtual product development teams. They recommended that team members (including leaders) possess the following skills: • Willingness to trust and work with others to achieve common goals. Chapter 3 discusses communication challenges in greater detail. • Ability to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing, preferably using one common language (e.g., English). Chapter 3 discusses guidelines for communication and knowledge sharing among team members. • Initiative in terms of being able to source information. Skills in information retrieval are useful here, as team members need to be able to identify suitable information quickly. • Decision-making capabilities. Quite often, decision-making will be the primary responsibility of leaders; however, team members also need to be able to make decisions and to document the rationale for making those decisions (e.g., in a documentation style guide). • Similar levels of technical skills. Chapter 4 discusses challenges relating to technology use, including differing levels of technical ability and unavailability of suitable technologies. • Experience working in virtual teams. While it might not always be feasible for every team member to possess this experience, as is often the case in student virtual teams, a project team should ideally comprise at least a few members who have previously participated in a successful virtual team project. Students who have participated in virtual teams while at college will be better-prepared for virtual teamwork in the workplace. In another study of workplace virtual teams, Hoegl and Gemuenden (2001) identified six indicators of teamwork quality: • Communication, focusing on levels and quality of information exchange. Sharing resources does not automatically imply quality teamwork; rather, there is a need to ensure that resources are suitable and shared in a timely manner, using appropriate means. • Coordination, focusing on agreed structures, schedules, budgets, and deliverables. Quite often, these activities are the responsibility of the leader.

20

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

• Balance of member contributions, focusing on each individual’s potential and experience. • Mutual support among members. • Effort, focusing on a high level of effort by everyone. • Cohesion, focusing on motivation, togetherness, and team spirit. The project leader can help team cohesion by facilitating socioemotional as well as task-oriented communication (Flammia, Cleary, & Slattery, 2010). Socializing and informal chat can also facilitate cultural understanding (Anawati & Craig, 2006). Jarvenpaa, Knoll, and Leidner (1998) identified behaviors or strategies typically found in high-trust student teams: • • • • • • • • •

They adopted a proactive rather than reactive style of action. They had a task-oriented, rather than procedure-oriented, focus for dialog. They had an optimistic team spirit. Leadership was dynamic. Task goals were the responsibility of the whole team, rather than the responsibility of individuals. Roles emerged and were interdependent, rather than assigned and independent. Time management was explicit and process-based. Interaction was frequent with few gaps between interactions. Feedback was predictable and substantive.

Anawati and Craig (2006) discussed the importance of behavioral adaptation, particularly when interacting in intercultural virtual teams. Because computermediated communication replaces traditional face-to-face communication, participants must adapt their communication strategies and styles accordingly, to ensure a successful outcome (Anawati & Craig, 2006). Anawati and Craig developed a framework of behavioral adaptations that can help improve communication in intercultural teams. For example, they recommend that team members: • Become more aware and accepting of cultural differences, such as understanding silence, giving praise, and receiving criticism. • Avoid slang, colloquialisms, jargon, and acronyms, as these do not translate well for non-native English speakers. • Avoid humor and irony, because such remarks can be interpreted negatively or incorrectly in some countries. • Speak slowly and clearly, as not all team members may be native English speakers. • Alter the tone of voice in audio- and videoconferencing sessions to ensure it is not too loud or abrupt.

Developing the Skills Needed to Succeed in Virtual Teams •

21

• Consider religious differences, such as religious holidays and beliefs in other countries. • Adapt to time zone differences, particularly when working across multiple time zones. The leader should ensure that no team member is adversely affected by unsociable meeting times on a continuous basis; instead, it is better to rotate meeting times to ensure a fairer distribution. SUMMARY Team members (including leaders) should ideally possess a number of skills and traits. In some cases, these skills can be learned, but in other cases, the leader or faculty member—as will be the case in student teams—may need to carefully select team members to ensure a healthy balance of personalities and experience. While many of these skills are also applicable to collocated teams, some skills are specific to virtual teams. Table 2.1 presents the various skills identified as being particularly important in virtual teams, based on a review of the key literature. Some skills are specific to workplace team leaders, some are specific to other team members, and other skills are relevant for both. Furthermore, some skills have been found to be essential, whereas others are desirable. As outlined earlier in this chapter, sometimes it is necessary to include experienced members with not-so-experienced members, so it might not always be feasible for every team member to possess each of these skills and traits. In college settings, faculty should try to balance the skills and traits of students to ensure each team has an equal opportunity for success. Looking at Table 2.1 more closely, it is evident that a good leader should possess most, if not all, of these skills and traits. Even in collocated teams, it is vital that a leader is skilled in project management and communication, for example. But if a leader is managing a virtual team, he should also have a deep understanding and awareness of intercultural communication issues and technology implementation. For the other team members, many of these skills will be learned, with experience. For readers needing to develop their teamwork skills and learn more about how to address the various challenges associated with virtual teamwork, Chapters 3 through 6 describe the various challenges in greater detail. TABLE 2.1.

Essential and desirable skills for leaders and other team members. Skills and Traits

Communication skills

Leader

Other Team Members

E

E

Technical skills

E

D

Project management skills, including establishing goals and communication guidelines, making decisions, and resolving conflict

E

N/A

(continued)

22

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

TABLE 2.1.

Continued Leader

Other Team Members

Understanding and awareness of intercultural communication issues

E

D

File management skills

E

D

Ability to facilitate trust and team cohesion

E

D

Ability to select suitable team members based on individual skill sets

E

N/A

Ability to highlight skills of each team member

D

N/A

Ability to work independently and show initiative (including being proactive)

E

D

Willingness to trust and work with others (including being cooperative and encouraging)

E

E

Experience working in virtual teams

E

D

Willingness to engage a high level of effort (including multitasking)

E

D

Personal commitment

D

D

Responsibility

E

D

Adaptability/flexibility

D

D

Skills and Traits

Reliability/dependability

E

E

Optimism

E

D

Dynamism

D

D

Legend: E= essential, D=desirable, N/A = not applicable.

PART II ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES OF VIRTUAL TEAMWORK

CHAPTER 3

ADDRESSING COMMUNICATION CHALLENGES

Communication is harder [in a virtual team], even with the technology. What would be resolved by walking over to someone’s desk in a normal work environment can take longer if an email is not responded to or their Skype account is not running. Casual chats are less likely. In a face-to-face environment, you could bounce ideas off a colleague. In an online environment it takes more effort to engage, plus you have to wonder if the others are too busy for what could be a relatively small issue. —Senior UX Analyst and virtual worker INTRODUCTION Strong interpersonal skills are essential to the smooth development of an efficient collaborative process. This chapter discusses the communication challenges that virtual team members face. These challenges include the need to establish trust early in the lifecycle of the project, the need to sustain effective communication Virtual Teams in Higher Education: A Handbook for Students and Teachers, pages 25–44. Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing 25 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

26

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

throughout the project, and the need to establish clear guidelines for communication and knowledge sharing among all team members. Many virtual team projects fail because team members do not establish and maintain clear and effective lines of communication with one another. Often miscommunication can lead to duplication of effort, wasted time, missed deadlines, and conflict. This chapter offers specific suggestions for addressing the most common communication challenges faced by members of virtual teams. Culture plays a very important role in how virtual team members communicate, and communication and culture interact to a very strong degree within virtual teams. This topic is explored in Chapter 6. Communication theory is a rich and varied field of study. Craig (1999, p. 120) notes that communication is “a richly meaningful term,” but one that is difficult to define because of interdisciplinarity, diversity, and fragmentation. Communication is a major topic that can form the basis for a whole degree program. This chapter focuses on only a subset of the field: key interpersonal communication principles, skills, and challenges that will assist virtual team organizers and participants when working in dispersed groups. INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION Hargie (2011) defines interpersonal skills as those used to interact with other people. In any team interaction, participants need interpersonal skills. Johnson, Suriya, Yoon, Berrett, and La Fleur (2002) explain that teamwork and collaboration are essential in both educational and work settings. Reports consistently rate communication in the top five transferable skills that employers value in new employees. Workers, whether working in virtual or collocated teams, need to be able to communicate successfully. Berry (2011) outlines how people in all situations need to communicate to plan, collaborate and accomplish tasks. Hargie (2006, p. 2) observes that “[c]ompetence in most types of profession involves the effective implementation of three main sets of skills”: cognitive, technical, and communication, “including the ability of the individual to interact effectively with others in the professional context” (Hargie, 2006, p. 2). He notes that most professional training emphasizes cognitive and technical skills, even though communication skills are essential in almost every profession. The following sections of this chapter explore components of interpersonal communication, with a focus on effective interpersonal communication and verbal and nonverbal communication. Throughout the discussion, the relevance of strategies and theories to virtual teamwork is highlighted. Components of Communication Interpersonal communication involves any communication among people. Although it is often taken to mean face-to-face communication, interpersonal communication increasingly takes place in virtual environments due to developments

Addressing Communication Challenges •

27

in information and communication technologies (ICTs). Interpersonal communication has some central components: •

•

•

•

•

Communicators Communicators are the people involved in the interaction. Hargie (2011) explains that in early communication models (e.g., Shannon and Weaver’s 1949 model), communicators were designated as either “sender” or “receiver,” while more recent models acknowledge the importance of feedback and two-way communication. Message The message is the “content of communication, embodying whatever it is that communicators wish to share” (Hargie, 2011, p. 16). The message can also contain information that the sender is not aware of sharing (e.g., nonverbal cues that “leak” additional information). Medium The medium is the means of delivering a message, whether through a face-to-face encounter or mediated by technology. Hartley (1999) considers face-to-face communication the purest form of interpersonal communication, and he argues that “any medium has particular characteristics which can have implications for communication” (p. 21). Because most or all communication is conducted through technology in virtual teams, media choices are a critical consideration. Context The context of a communication is the setting in which it takes place; the context encompasses “physical, social, chronological and cultural” dimensions (Hargie, 2011, p. 18). The relationship context will dictate how people feel about one another (e.g., whether nervous, comfortable, intimidated, or defensive) and whether the relationship is supportive or combative, for example. Context has a strong impact on the effectiveness of a communication. A student virtual team project takes place among peers at different educational institutions, possibly in different countries and from different national cultures, within a technological framework, over a set period of time, as part of an academic course, with a particular assignment or task at its core. All of these features frame the overall communication context. Code A code is “a system of meaning shared by a group. It designates signs and symbols peculiar to that code and specifies rules and conventions for their use” (Hargie, 2011, p. 17). Language is a code where users have a shared understanding of words and grammar. Nonverbal communication is also a code; however, some aspects of nonverbal communication are ambiguous or culture-dependent, and therefore, meanings may not be shared by communicators (Hartley, 1999). In global virtual teams, both language

28

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

•

•

•

and nonverbal communication may pose challenges for participants from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Noise Noise in communication refers to any interference that “degrades the message so that the meaning taken is not that intended” (Hargie, 2011, p. 17). Noise refers not only to physical noise, but to any distractions that can cause the message to be poorly communicated. Noise in a student virtual team might include coursework for other courses or technology failures that prevent messages from being encoded or decoded. Feedback Message receivers use feedback (whether conscious or unconscious) to communicate receipt of a message and their reaction to it. In face-to-face conversations, feedback could be nonverbal, such as a nod. In virtual settings, participants must ensure that they provide more explicit feedback. Walther and Bunz (2005, p. 834) note the need for participants in virtual teams to be “overt” and “explicit” about all aspects of communication, including receipt of messages, for example. One- and two-way communication Traditionally, communication can be described as one-way or two-way. In a one-way communication, a transmitter sends a message to a receiver, without providing a facility for the receiver to respond. Forms of one-way communication include television, radio, novels, newspapers, magazines, and road signs. The sender is rarely aware of the receiver’s reaction to the message in a one-way communication. Interpersonal exchanges where communicators send and receive feedback are known as two-way communications. New technologies are blurring the lines between one-way and two-way communication. For example, websites often offer “interactive” features such as comments features, RSS feeds, and social media links, and much online content is updated based on users’ feedback. Within a virtual team setting, members are concerned with two-way, interpersonal communication.

Effective Interpersonal Communication Hartley (1999, p. 53) lists skills necessary for effective interpersonal communication, including nonverbal communication, reinforcement, reflecting, opening and closing, explaining, listening, and self-disclosure. Many of these skills are necessary for virtual teams, where members need to interact, explain, and learn to trust one another. Some tenets of interpersonal communication help people to work more effectively in teams. These include empathy, self-disclosure, and mindfulness. Empathy in human relationships involves taking into account another person’s, or other people’s, perspectives on a situation and trying to see the situation from their point of view. Several researchers agree that empathy is an essential skill for

Addressing Communication Challenges •

29

virtual team participants. Dubé and Paré (2001, p. 71) observe that “[t]olerance, empathy, and the desire to discuss potential conflicting situations with an open mind are all necessary for members of a [global virtual team] to develop an effective level of synergy.” Where many cultures are working together on a team task, it is essential that team members are empathetic and recognize and acknowledge that different approaches can help them to achieve shared goals. Kayworth and Leidner (2002, p. 7) list empathy as a characteristic required specifically of virtual team leaders. Because empathy is expressed in part through nonverbal techniques (e.g., nods, mirroring, and eye contact), virtual team participants need to be conscious of the possible need to express empathy explicitly, using phrases such as “I understand your position,” or “I see your side of the story.” Self-disclosure involves sharing information about oneself with other people. This practice invites reciprocal disclosure and can lead to closer relationships. Self-disclosure is characterized by use of the personal pronoun “I” in statements, signifying personal opinions rather than passive statements (Hargie, Saunders, & Dickson, 1985). Hargie et al. (1985) note that self-disclosure can be about facts or personal feelings. In the early stages of communication, it is likely to center on facts (e.g., occupation, place of residence) or superficial feelings (e.g., liking or disliking a type of food). Self-disclosure can reveal positive or negative information. The level and type of disclosure should be appropriate to the situation and the communicants; for example, people reveal a level of personal medical information to a physician that they would not reveal at a dinner party (Hargie, 2011). In virtual teams, some self-disclosure, particularly as the team is forming, helps to build trust. Mindfulness involves “paying attention to the situation and the context” (Langer, 1989, p. 65) and constantly reevaluating our understanding of the world. For Langer, the opposite of mindfulness, mindlessness, occurs when people are preoccupied with outcome rather than process, “trapped by categories” and acting from a single, rather than a versatile, perspective. When dealing with members of other cultures, mindfulness facilitates better communication. Webster and Wong (2008) conclude that training in mindfulness can help to reduce cultural differences among virtual team members. Verbal Communication Language, both written and spoken, is the most common means of sharing information. Nevertheless, communication using language can be complex, and many linguistic features pose challenges within global virtual teams. Language use is influenced strongly by the culture in which speakers live and operate, the national culture, the corporate culture, and the functional culture. Hartley (1999, p. 126) explains that the English language, for example, “is composed of a number of different codes depending upon who uses it and how they use it.”

30

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

• In specialized work situations, jargon may replace everyday language. For example, many medical or legal terms in English are not understood by lay speakers. • Different cultures have different expressions, even when members share a common language. For example, Hiberno (Irish) English has been heavily influenced by the Irish language, resulting in some types of usage (expressions and grammatical constructions translated directly) unlikely to be familiar to English speakers from other locales (Dolan, 1999). • Idiomatic phrases (e.g., figurative phrases) are not universally understood by all speakers of a language and are very difficult for non-native speakers to understand (Thrush, 2001). • Spelling conventions differ in different geographical regions (e.g., U.S. English spells some commonplace words differently from British English). Virtual team members, therefore, need to make careful lexical and phrasing choices and need to check to ensure that their meaning is understood. If a virtual team task involves producing written content, such as a document, team members will need to agree on a spelling convention to use. Klitmøller and Lauring (2013) note that only limited research has been conducted on the impact of language use on the effectiveness of virtual teams. According to one study by Shachaf (2008), email is the most effective communication tool for global virtual teams where members do not share a common first language. It can reduce “the negative impact of differences in verbal and nonverbal style, thus reducing miscommunication” (Shachaf, 2008, p. 137). Nonverbal Communication Written and spoken language is by no means the only code used to communicate: Humans transmit messages using body language, facial expressions, posture, vocal behavior (accent, tone, pace), clothing, proximity, and general appearance. These communication signals are collectively known as nonverbal communication. Hargie (2011, p. 43) explains that “the large majority of interaction time is not taken up by speech but by nonverbal communication.” Skills in listening and reading nonverbal signs are essential for effective face-to-face communication but may be less effective for virtual teamwork, where skills in explicit communication, asking appropriate questions, and interpreting and analyzing responses are essential. Although nonverbal communication is typically associated with spoken language, in written messages some aspects of communication are nonverbal. For example, the use of visual language, punctuation, typography, and highlighting devices accentuates or explains meanings (Schriver, 1997). Within virtual teams, other nonverbal signals are relevant, such as speed of response, or, indeed, silence. All the features that comprise nonverbal communication account for how well people understand the content and inferences of a message, although the dominance of the nonverbal is more prominent in some situations than others (Hartley,

Addressing Communication Challenges •

31

1999). In a virtual team, because members do not meet face-to-face, they have significantly less access to nonverbal signals, and thus much of the message content can be lost or misunderstood. Daim et al. explain the problem: Humans communicate largely through body language and tone of voice. These elements…allow us to derive a wealth of accurate information and meaning from tone of voice and facial expressions.… Only tone of voice is conveyed through phone communication, and neither of these elements is present when communication occurs via a computer. In some cases, this can lead to anxiety, confusion, and miscommunication. (2012, p. 203)

Some nonverbal signs seem to be universal, including how we express emotions such as fear, anger, surprise, and happiness (Hartley, 1999). However, our understanding of many types of nonverbal signals is strongly influenced by our national culture, and many nonverbal signals (e.g., proximity, gestures, and intonation) are culture-dependent. In virtual teams, communication may be compromised if team members come from different cultures and misunderstand nonverbal signs. Chapter 6 discusses nonverbal communication and its role in intercultural communication. GROUP COMMUNICATION Hartley (1999, p. 205) states that while group communication incorporates all of the components of interpersonal communication, “additional factors need to be taken into account.” This section examines aspects of communication relevant to virtual teams: communication models, stages of group development, and social identity theory. Communication Models Models are often used to map the communication process. Aristotle proposed a three-pronged linear model of communication, comprising speaker, speech, and audience. These three elements remain central to a communication. Lasswell (1948), a political scientist who analyzed Nazi propaganda to examine why it was so powerful, divided the communication process into five components with the following question model: Who says what to whom, through which channel, to what effect? Although this model is almost 70 years old, it continues to capture key elements of a communication: the communicators (both sender and receiver), the communication channel, the content of the communication, and its impact. Within a virtual team setting, this model continues to have relevance, since it takes account of factors such as communication strategies, the impact of communication, and the technologies used for communicating. Shannon and Weaver developed a linear model in 1949 that sees communication as comprising source, transmitter, channel, receiver, and destination. This model was originally developed to describe telephone systems (Hartley, 1999).

32

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Shannon, a research scientist at Bell Telephone Company, was trying to ensure minimum distortion of messages on phone lines. Weaver applied Shannon’s model to interpersonal communication. This model demonstrates one-way communication. An information source (e.g., a person) uses a transmitter. A message needs to be formulated in a code that the receiver will understand (e.g., human language, computer code, or nonverbal signals). The signal could be words or text, and this is the essence of the communication, where the meaning of the message is contained. The channel is the medium of communication. Noise can be physical or semantic: any distraction or distortion (e.g., a hearing problem, language barrier, or technology interference). The receiver is the decoder used to get the message to its destination, and the destination is the person or thing at the other end for whom or for which the message was intended. Since Shannon and Weaver’s simple model of communication in the late 1940s, researchers have used and developed visual frameworks to describe complex message transfer. These models are used to describe human communication and communication technology. Maletzke, a German communications and psychology scholar, developed a model of mass communication in 1963 (Figure 3.1). Although the model looks complex, it has very clear captions, and the three main elements—communicator (C), message (M), and receiver (R)—date back to Aristotle. This model, see Figure 3.1, takes account of the various roles played by each of these factors and the many considerations for any communication.

FIGURE 3.1.

Maletzke’s model

Addressing Communication Challenges •

33

Maletzke’s model “refers to personal and contextual factors for the communicator and the receiver” (Robson & Robinson, 2013, p. 183). This model acknowledges several factors that influence communication in virtual teams. For example, it recognizes the role that the medium plays in influencing how the message, the sender, and the receiver are perceived. It also characterizes the ways that the three main elements of communicator, message, and receiver interact throughout the process of communication, as is typical in a virtual team. Developmental Sequence in Small Groups Teams go through several stages as members progress from getting to know one another, to working together, to eventually separating. Tuckman’s (1965) “Developmental Sequence in Small Groups” proposes four stages in the development of a group, from initial formation, through early conflict regarding interpersonal issues and tasks, through resolution of this conflict, to emergence as a functional group. Communication strategies help team members to negotiate each stage. In the forming stage, group members come together for a common purpose or set of tasks. Tuckman (1965) observes that this stage has three elements: Group members orient themselves in relation to one another, test the boundaries of membership, and establish “dependency relationships with leaders, other group members, or pre-existing standards” (p. 396). Within virtual teams, Joy-Matthews and Gladstone (2000) consider the development of trust at the forming stage to be essential. They recommend that some face-to-face contact helps with establishment of trust. Since such contact is likely to be impossible in virtual teams, in addition to working out the parameters and requirements of the tasks, virtual team members should take time to engage in socioemotional communication at the formation stage. Socioemotional communication involves small talk, or “chit chat”, and helps team members to get to know one another at the forming stage. Such communication will help to build trust (Flammia, Cleary, & Slattery, 2010) (See Socioemotional Communication). Trust established at the forming stage may reduce tensions in the second developmental stage: storming. As group members learn to work with one another on prescribed tasks, some conflict may occur. One study by Johnson et al. (2002) found that although virtual teams went through the forming, norming, and performing stages, storming was limited, possibly because their study involved students working on a small project. Berry (2011) suggests that the lack of storming apparent in some virtual teams may be because “virtual teams have more of a task than personality focus, or perhaps because they often have established predetermined communication structures that resolve or otherwise deal with how to do work conflicts” (p. 6). Although the storming phase is curtailed compared to faceto-face teams, conflicts may occur at any phase in virtual team collaborations. The next stage of group development in Tuckman’s model is norming. At this stage, members take on definite roles, standards are developed, and the group es-

34

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

tablishes procedures for working together. In virtual teams, group members have to establish procedures for virtual communication. Finally, at the performing stage, members interact to work on the tasks. The group “becomes a functional instrument for dealing with the task” (Tuckman 1965, p. 396). At this stage, the group should be able to work effectively to accomplish its goals. Joy-Matthews and Gladstone (2000, p. 25) state that “this [stage] does not seem to pose different problems for either the proximate or the virtual team.” In later work, Tuckman and Jensen (1977) proposed a final stage, adjourning, whereby the group disbands and members move on to other projects. At this stage it is important for team leaders to prepare team members for project completion and separation. In corporations where temporary groups are formed and disbanded regularly, and in virtual teams, especially when team members have never met face-to-face, adjourning needs to be carefully managed to prevent anxiety. JoyMatthews and Gladstone (2000, p. 26) note that “tensions about stopping work in a group” may occur. In addition (p. 26), “in a group that has become productive… members may find it hard to have to start the forming phase again with a new group.” They also observe that a longer-term outcome of group membership may be the development of a community of practice. This concept is discussed in relation to virtual teams in Chapter 9, Communities of Practice. Critics of the development model of group formation note that its linear structure does not always adequately or accurately represent the functional reality of team formation (Hargie, 2011). Further, it is now common for individuals to be members of several groups at any one time, each of which might be at a different stage (Joy-Matthews & Gladstone, 2000). Nevertheless, the model is a useful tool for virtual team organizers, designers, and participants, since it helps members and leaders to understand the life cycle of the team, to identify common stumbling blocks (e.g., at the storming and adjourning stages), and to consider communication strategies that are effective at different stages. Using case study data from team members’ interactions in a student virtual team, Yoon and Johnson (2008, p. 605) identified an emergent seven-stage model of virtual team development as follows: • • • • •

Orientation, during which members share background information about themselves and their work. Scheduling, during which members plan meeting schedules and technology choices. Exploration, during which team members agree on items such as tasks, roles, and information sharing strategies. Work and decision, during which members appoint a leader, have meetings, share information, ask and answer questions, and perform. Progress check and evaluation, during which individuals report on their progress.

Addressing Communication Challenges •

35

•

Refinements or putting together, during which team members finalize the task. • Termination, during which team members complete and submit the project.

Their findings show that some teams went through these stages in a linear progression, while others (adaptive teams) moved back and forth between stages during the life cycle of the project. Yoon and Johnson (2008) noted communication strategies that occurred at more than one stage, including social communication, facilitation, and reinforcement. They also observed “forces” for and against group development. Those forces that aided group development include shared goals and work procedures, shared social information, clarification, and member support. Forces that hindered group development include nonparticipation, technical problems, and weak information sharing. Such forces enable team members to identify with a group. Social identity theory is the study of how individuals identify with the social groups they belong to, including virtual teams. Social Identity Theory Social identity theory (SIT) examines the study of in-group behavior of individuals in many settings. According to SIT, individuals classify themselves into social groups that are both ascribed (race, gender) and achieved (e.g., occupational identity). Ellemers, Haslam, Platow, and van Knippenberg (2003, p. 6) define social identification as “the notion that people do not generally relate to social situations as detached observers, but, instead, their own identity is typically implicated in their perceptions of, and responses to, the social situation.” Hartley (1999) identifies three components of social identity: personality, self-concept, and role. These components influence one another. In Hartley’s example, a person with an outgoing personality, will have a self-concept of him/herself as friendly and confident, and may take on a corresponding role, such as, in his example, party organizer. In virtual teams, the roles that members adopt are likely to be influenced by these three factors. Hotho (2008, p. 729) contends that “professional identity is one of the multiple social identities an individual holds.” Therefore, while members of a virtual team may identify with the team and its function, they are likely to also hold corresponding social identities. In the case of students, they might identify simultaneously with other work groups, their classmates, and peer groups. In the workplace, employees may work on many teams simultaneously, and these teams sometimes have competing schedules and commitments. These competing identities may distract team members from their tasks, particularly in groups with weaker social ties. Therefore, it is important for virtual teams to develop and foster a strong sense of in-group collegiality. According to Hennessy and West (1999), a group’s prestige has an impact on members’ self-esteem. In-group collegiality, or a sense of group belongingness, is heightened by an awareness that some people do not belong to the group. In so-called deprived groups, conversely, members may be

36

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

more positively disposed towards those outside the group than towards the ingroup (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). For example, team members in a team with limited resources might regard other teams with more admiration or respect. Cultural identity may also impact social identity, and in virtual teams this factor may compromise the group’s ability to perform effectively. Chapter 6, Social Identity Theory and Culture, discusses social identity from the perspective of culture. COMMUNICATION CHALLENGES IN VIRTUAL TEAMS Virtual team organizers need to understand that virtual communication is different from face-to-face communication, and they will need to choose communication tools and patterns that accommodate those differences (Berry, 2011). Virtual team members face many communication challenges, including the need to establish trust early in the lifecycle of the project, the need to establish clear guidelines for communication and knowledge sharing among all team members, the need to select tools that support communication, and the need to sustain effective communication throughout the project. When people communicate poorly in workplace and team environments, they waste time and resources, fail to accomplish goals, and damage relationships. In virtual teams, poor communication causes even more problems. Because virtual team members do not meet face-to-face, they may have less understanding of contexts and personality and cultural differences. Therefore, clarity of communication is essential. Berry (2011, p. 6) explains why communication problems are exacerbated in virtual teams: “In [collocated] teams, vague or unclear expectations can be clarified through casual conversation in the hallway, but virtual teams need more structure because this casual chat is not available to them, or at least not available in the same way.” Many virtual team projects fail because team members do not establish and maintain clear and effective lines of communication with one another. Robey, Khoo, and Powers (2000, p. 55) explain why communication is a challenge to the success of virtual teams: “Beyond their understanding of tools and technologies, virtual team members must develop communication practices that operate across space and time.” Challenges in Developing and Maintaining Trust Many articles about virtual teams highlight the importance of developing trust among team members. Daim et al. (2012, p. 206) note that “research has indicated that one of the major reasons for the failure of [global virtual teams] is related to building trust.” Hargie (2011, p. 426) identifies three types of trust:

Addressing Communication Challenges •

37

• Cognitive trust refers to belief in a teammate’s “technical know-how or a solid knowledge base” (p. 426). Cognitive trust depends in part on performance and may be developed through task communication. • Affective trust refers to “the degree of emotional feeling of attachment” (p. 426) and mutual concern. This issue is significant in virtual teams, where emotional attachment has to be deliberately fostered through socioemotional communication. • Organizational trust is both intraorganizational, relating to how much “staff trust others in their own organisation,” and interorganizational, relating to “the degree to which staff in two corporations trust one another” (p. 426). Interorganizational trust is an important factor within student virtual teams, when students from different institutions have to work together. Jarvenpaa, Knoll, and Leidner (1998) characterize three requirements of trust in teams: ability, benevolence, and integrity. Team members must believe that their teammates are, firstly, capable of completing tasks; secondly, prepared to work in a generous spirit; and, thirdly, prepared to work in an honest and faithful manner. Trust is important when working in any team because every team interaction involves an element of risk for all participants: Team members must depend on one another to complete a task successfully. Coppola, Hiltz, and Rotter (2004) use the concept of swift trust to explain the need for trust in temporary teams, such as virtual teams, formed to complete a task over a short timeframe. They outline how students participating in virtual teams exhibit characteristics of swift trust teams: they work in situations that are uncertain and that present risks; they are vulnerable to the caprices of teammates; and they have high expectations for success. Swift trust is sustained and reinforced by a high level of activity. Trust is linked to access to nonverbal signals. Hargie (2011, p. 47) argues that nonverbal communication is more “truthful” than verbal communication, because it is less capable of regulation. Even when very skilled communicators are capable of monitoring their nonverbal signals, “leakage” can occur. Hargie (2011, p. 53) states that “where there is inconsistency between the verbal and the nonverbal channels, the latter normally holds sway.” Thus, in virtual teams, where participants have less access to nonverbal cues, trust may be more difficult to establish. Media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986), discussed later in this chapter (See Media Richness), implies that trust is more difficult to develop in electronic communication environments where participants have limited access to nonverbal cues. Additionally, trust is linked to impressions formed over casual face-to-face encounters, such as over coffee or lunch (Greenberg, Greenberg, & Antonucci, 2007). Trust, essentially, is developed through communication; regular communication is linked to higher perceptions of trustworthiness, while silence has a negative impact on trust (Sarker, Ahuja, Sarker, & Kirkeby, 2011). Hargie (2011) dis-

38

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

tinguishes between task and relational or face goals. Relational or face goals are those related to socioemotional communication, how people relate to one another, and the concept of face saving, while task goals focus on performance and outcomes. Virtual teams need to develop deliberate communication strategies for both socioemotional and task communication. Socioemotional Communication To compensate for the lack of nonverbal cues and social encounters, social communication and self-disclosure are said to contribute to the development of trust in virtual environments, including virtual teams. Social communication is essential at the forming stage of team development to enable participants to get to know one another. A relationship between social communication and trust development has been noted in research on virtual team interactions (Flammia et al., 2010; Greenberg et al., 2007; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998; Robey et al., 2000; Walther & Bunz, 2005). According to Robey et al. (2000), sustained and predictable use of communication channels contributes to trust. It complements later task communication, and “members who explicitly verbalized their commitment… were seen as more trustworthy” (Robey et al., 2000, p. 53). Research by the authors shows that virtual teams that engage in socioemotional communication have more successful outcomes (Flammia et al., 2010). Socioemotional communication involves non-task communication, perhaps about hobbies, interests, or family. In its essence, it requires self-disclosure. Hargie (2011, p. 269) argues that, paradoxically, self-disclosure “requires trust, but also creates it.” Thus, in order for trust to form in virtual teams, participants must be prepared to be trusting from the outset. DeJong and Elfring (2010) explain that when team members recognize their teammates’ vulnerability, they begin to see them as trustworthy. This process involves a “suspension of irreducible uncertainty” (p. 536). This “suspension of uncertainty” is a difficult but necessary leap of faith that participants in virtual teams must take in order for trusting relationships to evolve. Procedural and Task Communication Within any team assignment, members need to transition from socioemotional communication to procedural and task communication. Procedural communication refers to discussions about how to work together on an assignment. Task communication typically involves discussing the boundaries of the task, resolving inherent ambiguities, and discussing performance and completion. Communication about the task contributes to trust within a virtual team. Jarvenpaa and Leidner’s (1998) research with student virtual teams indicates that when teams successfully move from social, to procedural, to task communication, trust increases among team members. In their study, teams that were able to clarify the requirements of the task, come to an agreement on those requirements, and subsequently focus on the task had higher levels of trust. They observe that task-based communication helps to maintain trust that has been developed

Addressing Communication Challenges •

39

through social communication. Greenberg et al. (2007) argue that once teams have engaged in social communication, they must move on to procedural and task communication. At this stage, “trust is based on cognitive assessments” (p. 331): team members’ perceptions of one another’s abilities and integrity. Trust in other team members to complete tasks contributes to the overall success of the team and to outcomes. DeJong and Elfring (2010) highlight team reflexivity, team monitoring, and team effort as task communication processes that foster trust and ultimately improve outcomes. Team reflexivity refers to overt reflections by the team on their processes and outcomes. Team monitoring refers to how team members are observed by team leaders. DeJong and Elfring (2010) show that monitoring can have both negative and positive impacts on trust. Team efforts refer to the labor required to complete tasks, and how team members interact during those efforts. Where trust is weak within a virtual team, conflict is likely to develop. Conflict When team members’ interests, needs, or priorities differ, the relationship may become strained, leading to conflicts and breakdown. Conflict is a common challenge in teams, whether collocated or virtual. Worchel (1986, p. 284) observes how “frighteningly easy it is to initiate conflict; even the simple process of randomly dividing people into different groups spawns in-group favoritism and outgroup discrimination.” Nevertheless, Ayoko, Konrad, and Boyle (2012) argue that within a virtual team, the character and dynamics of conflict are essentially different from conflict within a collocated team. The nature of virtual teams—where members work at a distance from one another using technology—means that conflict, when it does occur, may be especially challenging to manage and resolve (Hinds & Mortensen, 2005). Ayoko et al. (2012, p. 158) found that “conflict in [virtual teams] may be exacerbated by communication delays, time zone differences, and lack of face-to-face contact due to space-time dispersion.” Indeed, prolonged silence can cause conflict in a virtual environment when silence might be unremarkable in a collocated team. Kankanhalli, Tan, and Wei (2006) suggest that technology can both cause and help to resolve conflict. In a case study of global virtual teams, they found that occurrences of conflict were caused by information overload due to technology choices, cultural differences such as individual versus collective orientations, and language misunderstandings. They conclude (2006, p. 269) that “managers of [global virtual teams] need to be aware of communication technology effects such as a large volume of electronic communication and lack of immediacy of feedback that may affect conflict.” Wakefield, Leidner, and Garrison (2008) note that in virtual teams with effective leadership, conflict is better detected and managed, using strategies such as mentoring of team members, consistent technologymediated communication, and flexibility. They argue that an effective team leader

40

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

knows when to intervene and how to prevent conflict. Leadership and conflict is discussed in detail in Chapter 5, Preventing and Managing Conflict. Challenges in Communicating Electronically As implied in the preceding sections, communicating in groups is a complex process, and this complexity can be increased when team members do not meet face-to-face. Virtual teamwork poses several communication challenges that are related to the use of technology. These challenges include the “richness” of communication media, the variety of media used on a project, and communication etiquette adopted by team members. Media Richness Communicating through technology often means using media that afford fewer social cues and limited nonverbal interactions. Such media are known as lean media (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Daft and Lengel’s media richness theory places communication technologies on a continuum depending on their verbal and nonverbal affordances. They argue that richer media are needed to support equivocal tasks, where several interpretations are possible, and solutions to problems have to be discussed, rather than found in data. This theory is significant for communication within a virtual team. Faculty members organizing a student virtual team project might consider which tools could afford a richer communication experience for participants. The richest medium is a face-to-face encounter, followed by videoconferencing, and telephone conversations. For example, team members relying on the telephone to communicate would not see one another’s facial expressions and might thus miss some communication cues, but could infer some meaning from tone, pace, and other paralinguistic features of the speaker. Lean media are entirely text based, and include email messages and instant messages. Team members relying on text to communicate have even fewer opportunities to infer meaning from nonverbal information. Recent research (Walvoord, Redden, Elliott, & Coovert, 2008, p. 1887) suggests that “media richness does not necessarily have a direct positive relationship with virtual performance or successful interactions.” In some cases, use of leaner media can lead to more effective team performance. Lea, Spears, and Rogers (2003, pp. 103–104) state that leaner media can be advantageous because they enable communicators to “resist the power and influence of others.” As Berry (2011, p. 8) elaborates: “Computer-mediated communication has fewer social, political, or power context cues as found in face-to-face communication. [Nonverbal] cues such as intonation, facial expression, gestures, and contextual cues that enable listeners to read (or misread) the speaker’s intent are missing in computer-mediated communication.” Team members who are shy in face-to-face encounters may find self-expression and task contributions easier in a text-based environment. Further, while online communication may take longer than face-to-face social communi-

Addressing Communication Challenges •

41

cation (Berry, 2011), nevertheless the slow rate does not necessarily affect the depth of communication. Faculty should also consider how they can reduce equivocality to enable effective lean-media communication. Daft and Lengel (1986, p. 559) note that, in an organizational situation, “[O]rganization structure and support systems can be tailored to provide the correct amount of information to reduce uncertainty.” In a virtual team project, faculty can reduce uncertainty by providing consistent and detailed task information. Chapter 8 discusses project design in more detail. Multimodality and Multiple Communication Technologies Technology now enables people to communicate through many modes simultaneously. For example, during a videoconference, team members can share documents, screenshots, or even dynamic computer screens to enable teammates to visualize and better understand ideas. In an online discussion, participants can share audio and video files. Social media enable people to share several types of media in one location, instantly. This multimodal way of interacting is relatively new. Until recently, communication occurred primarily through a single medium. For example, in a telephone conversation, only audio communication was possible. Walvoord et al. (2008, p. 1887) argue that “[e]lectronically-mediated communication of information affects a vast array of underlying processes (e.g., perception, encoding, decision-making, critical thinking, interpretation)” and multimodal communication environments can help team members to communicate effectively. Multimodality has several advantages for virtual teams. It enables expression of ideas in many modes, including though text, audio, video, and graphics, either synchronously or asynchronously, and in richer or leaner environments. Members with different strengths or personality types can choose modes of communication that match their preferences. This variety can help to motivate team members and can lead to richer experiences, more effective interactions, and an overall improved team performance. There are also some challenges associated with communicating in multimodal environments—chiefly the potential for team members to miss messages or to lose content if the team is using many different media to collaborate. Walvoord et al. (2008) argue that team leaders must choose technologies for virtual teams with care, mindful of the task and team processes: Considering the pressures experienced by team members due to time scarcity, numerous advanced technologies and (in)appropriateness of a particular modality for the information being exchanged, there is a need for e-Leaders to identify or make available to team members the most appropriate communication media for the virtual team task or process. (p. 1887)

Daim et al. (2012) agree that leaders or managers must specify which technologies to use in different situations in order to prevent miscommunication or communication breakdowns. Research further suggests (Berry, 2011) that participants

42

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

should be able to use synchronous and asynchronous communication as necessary. Chapter 4 discusses technology selection in detail. Netiquette Electronic communication poses many challenges, and when teams rely exclusively on electronic media for communication, confusion and conflict can ensue. Netiquette is a term used to describe “conventions of politeness” (Scheuermann & Taylor, 1997, p. 269) in online environments. In online communication environments where explicit cues such as intonation and facial expression are absent, written communication must be careful and deliberate. Many of the netiquette guidelines offered by Scheuermann and Taylor in 1997 remain relevant, including advice on writing in upper and lower case (rather than upper case alone, which is perceived as aggressive), avoiding “flaming” (deliberately offending others), not taking offense too easily, avoiding use of emoticons and abbreviations that may not be universally understood, considering the audience, and thinking before posting (especially before posting a potentially inflammatory message). Preece (2004) advises that faculty (or in the case of workplace virtual teams, leaders) should set rules and moderate online discussions to reduce the impact of poor online etiquette. Given the culturally heterogeneous nature of many virtual teams, not all members will have the same expectations or understanding of politeness. Preece (2004, p. 61) advises that “processes are needed for dealing with subtle etiquette problems...and inadvertent impoliteness due to cultural misunderstandings.” Joy-Matthews and Gladstone (2000) suggest that rules of netiquette can apply to virtual teams, where electronic communication is the norm. COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES Based on the preceding discussion, several guidelines for communication in virtual teams are relevant. These are organized into guidelines: for faculty organizing teams, and for students participating in teams. Communication Guidelines for Student Participants in Virtual Teams Students need to be aware of the differences between and requirements for social, and later task communication, with their teammates. Students need to recognize the need to move from social, to procedural, to task communication and to share information among all team members. Students need to take time to build social links and to get to know one another, even if this activity seems redundant. Social communication at early stages of the virtual team project helps to build trust, while at later stages students should transition to engage in procedural and task communication. It is important for team members to agree on strategies for communication: how regular it will be, specific days when participants are or are not available,

Addressing Communication Challenges •

43

communication channels, and whether communication will be synchronous or asynchronous. Agreeing on such details at the start can help to prevent conflict. Students should understand that communication through technology has attendant challenges, including the slower pace of information exchange due to time differences and asynchronous tools, increased chances for miscommunication due to the leanness of some media, and the possibility that technology will not support some endeavors or may malfunction. Daim et al. (2012) suggest that virtual team participants should establish protocols for electronic communication at the start of a project to reduce the effects of the lean medium. A protocol might outline details such as expected response times, types and frequency of communication, times when respondents will definitely not be available (e.g., weekends or holidays), and what recipients should do if they do not understand a message. If conflict does occur, it can be positive if it enables team members to air problems and to come to a consensus. It is possible to overcome conflict through open and respectful communication. Students working with team members from different cultures also need to recognise that culture has an impact on perceptions and experiences. Chapter 6 discusses cultural challenges associated with virtual teams and how to address them. Communication Guidelines for Faculty Coppola et al. (2004, p. 96) note that “predictable communication” and “substantive and timely responses” from faculty help students in online courses to perform more effectively; the authors’ own experiences support this finding within virtual team contexts. From the outset of any project, teams need to have clear guidelines about how they will communicate, through which channels and for what purposes. Faculty also need to agree upon very detailed project parameters to prevent potential task ambiguity. They must provide clear guidelines about the tasks teams must complete. Although such guidelines are important for all teams, they are essential when team members do not meet face-to-face. Faculty organizers of team projects need to support teams in choosing technology with affordances that will facilitate communication (including, for example, synchronous and asynchronous tools). Finally, faculty members need to ensure that they keep lines of communication open throughout a project so that teams experiencing difficulties can contact them if necessary. Chapter 8, Communication Strategies, discusses communication strategies of faculty members organizing virtual teams in more detail. SUMMARY Participants in virtual teams need to be accomplished communicators. They should have a good understanding of the many components that contribute to suc-

44

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

cessful communication, e.g. the media, the context, use of verbal and nonverbal communication, and feedback. It is also important to recognize and be able to apply tenets of interpersonal communication, such as empathy, self-disclosure, and mindfulness. Poor communication in virtual teams can ultimately lead to project failure. Therefore, participants further need to be aware of potential communication challenges that can occur when working in virtual teams. Such challenges relate to developing and maintaining trust and using technology to communicate effectively. Groups go through several stages, and communicate differently in each stage. These stages include forming, storming, norming, and adjourning. For virtual teams, an understanding of the types of communication that occur at different stages can help to ensure a successful project outcome.

CHAPTER 4

ADDRESSING TECHNOLOGY CHALLENGES

For communication and team-building, good tools are the essence—I have been lucky to date because I am contracted out to high-tech companies that have very good tools and software. This makes it easy to share desktops, information, problems, etc. Without good software and equipment, it would be very difficult to work on or manage a virtual team. —Technical Writing Team Lead for a technical writing service provider INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses technology challenges, which are one of the four major challenges identified by Kayworth and Leidner (2000). One of the biggest challenges relating to technology concerns is technology selection. For people new to virtual teamwork, the array of tools and features that are available can create undue stress and confusion and can even lead to poor technology choices. Poor technology choices can have implications for budgets and, in extreme cases, a project can fail. This chapter outlines the various categories of tools that are suitable for use in virtual teams. While there are occasional references to specific tools for Virtual Teams in Higher Education: A Handbook for Students and Teachers, pages 45–56. Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing 45 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

46

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

demonstration purposes, the focus of this chapter is on the different categories of tools that are available and the advantages and disadvantages of using the different types of tools for virtual teamwork. Depending on the task at hand, some tools will be more suitable than others. This chapter also explains the challenges associated with using technology to communicate and collaborate and how these challenges might be overcome. There are many ways to classify tools. Laurillard (2002) observes that tools can take many forms, depending on the type of learning experience they facilitate. Tools can be narrative, interactive, communicative, adaptive, or productive. Some tools even support different types of learning simultaneously (ibid). Another way to look at tools is to consider the types of media they support. For example, most virtual learning environments (VLEs) support the sharing of slides, text files, video clips, and links, and many videoconferencing tools support the sharing of slides, live video, and online chat. When deciding on which tool to use, the team should also consider if the tool facilitates real time or delayed communication. At their simplest level, tools tend to be classified as synchronous or asynchronous. Synchronous tools such as online chat and videoconferencing are used in real time, and as a result, interactions can be richer because they allow for immediate feedback, nonverbal cues, and personalization (Cleary & Slattery, 2009). Some synchronous tools make it possible for virtual teams to replicate face-toface meetings even if they are interacting at a distance across different time zones (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Baskerville and Nandhakumar (2007) state that longterm virtual teams should “assemble geographically for establishment or reinvigoration of personal trust” (p. 20). If teams cannot assemble geographically, they can experience many of the other characteristics of face-to-face communication, using videoconferencing technology. While tools such as email, discussion forums, and wikis can be used synchronously, they tend to be used asynchronously. Because responses do not tend to be immediate and there is no possibility for visual cues, these tools are considered leaner (See Chapter 3, Media Richness). While the response delay may initially be seen as a disadvantage, asynchronous media can result in more meaningful responses over time, and they often store permanent records of interactions in transcript form (Zaccaro & Bader, 2003). Asynchronous tools should not necessarily be seen as poor choices for virtual teams; rather, teams using such tools might just need more time for social relationships and information exchange to take place (Sole & Edmondson, 2002). Leaner media such as email have been found to be very useful for one-way communication, but richer media such as videoconferencing sessions are better for group discussions, as they more closely resemble face-to-face discussions (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Sivunen & Valo, 2006). In some circumstances, teachers and students have little choice over the tools they can use for virtual teamwork. Institutional virtual learning environments (VLEs) such as Blackboard, Moodle, and Sakai have their own built-in collabora-

Addressing Technology Challenges •

47

tion tools (the next section expands on tool categories). Depending on teachers’ requirements, it may be necessary to restrict tool usage to those offered by the institutional VLE, particularly if teachers want to analyze all the student interactions. On the other hand, teachers might decide to give the students free rein with regards the tools they use; this approach is sometimes taken if the VLE tools are not all user friendly or appealing. In this instance, if teachers still wish to observe students’ interactions, students can grant their teachers access to these other tools (e.g., students who use Google Docs to collaborate on a document privately can add their teachers to the list of authorized users). This strategy is recommended, particularly where there may be concerns about levels of student participation and engagement. Like VLEs, groupware tools provide a central space that supports many functions including email, chat, and resource sharing (Shachaf, 2008). Kezsbom (2000) recommends having some kind of “shared space” where members can share resources and discuss ideas (p. 35). In many virtual team projects, students use a variety of different tools, as they each serve a different purpose and suit different communication styles. Shachaf (2008) determined that information and communication technologies (ICTs) both contributed to and reduced the negative impact of cultural diversity on team effectiveness. For example, accents were sometimes distorted over telephone or videoconference calls, but nonverbal differences were eliminated using email. For this latter reason, email is often the preferred tool for intercultural communication (Shachaf, 2008). Sivunen and Valo (2006) found that the team leader in their study preferred to use discussion forums and videoconferencing equipment but eventually succumbed to organizing a faceto-face meeting, as the team members specifically requested one. Timmerman and Scott (2006) reported that, more than any other variable, frequency of technology use was dictated by a team’s structural characteristics (e.g., number of locations) and size. The next section discusses different types of tools commonly used in virtual teams. COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION TOOLS Before discussing challenges relating to technology, it is necessary to outline the types of technologies that are available to virtual teams. This section describes the main features, benefits, and challenges of using the following types of tools: • • • • • •

Audio- and videoconferencing tools Email Discussion forums Chat rooms and instant messaging Collaborative authoring tools File sharing and other tools

48

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Audio- and Videoconferencing Tools Online conference sessions are very beneficial in virtual teams, particularly to kick off projects (Flammia, Cleary, & Slattery, 2007). Live conferencing is very beneficial if students cannot meet one another physically in the same environment. Skype and Google Hangouts are free online conferencing tools that enable audio- and videoconferencing sessions over the web (also known as webconferencing). Videoconferencing is usually preferable, as it enables users to process visual cues such as facial expressions and hand gestures, and therefore it more closely replicates face-to-face meetings. In early studies relating to media richness, Daft and Lengel (1984) found that the face-to-face medium facilitates the richest information sharing, so videoconferencing is the next best option when working virtually. At a very basic level, an audioconference can be facilitated using telephones that have loud-speaker facilities, so it is a relatively accessible and inexpensive technology (Sivunen & Valo, 2006). Audioconference sessions involving more than two remote members are not as user-friendly, though, as it can be difficult to determine who is speaking and who wishes to speak. Also, audioconferences lack the visual cues afforded by videoconferencing sessions. Even if broadband connections are available, videoconferencing equipment occasionally fails due to interrupted signals and dropped connections, so it is necessary to have a back-up communication plan. Shachaf (2008) reported that participants found language encoding to be more difficult via audioconferencing than in face-to-face communication or email because vocal cues and unfamiliar accents sometimes caused miscommunication issues. While students often find videoconference sessions intimidating at first, teachers can help ease this tension by giving students a simple task to do at the first session; a common technique is to ask students to introduce themselves briefly. Another option is to prepare “icebreaker” questions for students to answer during that initial session. With further videoconferencing sessions, students should start to feel more at ease. Using Skype and Google Hangouts, students can engage in text-based chat while speaking, and they can exchange resources, which are available after the session. Both tools also enable students to make a recording of a session available afterwards; however, in the case of Skype, students need to install add-on software. Other tools that facilitate online meetings include WebEx, AnyMeeting, GoToMeeting, and Adobe Connect. Some VLEs, such as Blackboard Collaborate, include integrated webconferencing facilities, so this may be a good option where students are required to only use their VLE for the virtual team project. Even though participants in the Anawati and Craig (2006) study said they would much rather meet face-to-face than use any other medium, videoconferencing was considered the next best option.

Addressing Technology Challenges •

49

Email Email is a frequently used tool in virtual teamwork, particularly for task-related work (Sivunen & Valo, 2006). Flammia et al. (2007) found that five of the seven student virtual teams in their study used email for aspects of collaboration, even though a VLE was also made available to them. Email can be used synchronously if the individuals are online at the same time, but it tends to be used more asynchronously and, therefore, lends itself well to communication across different time zones (Shachaf, 2008). Another advantage of using email is that it affords users more time to consider and edit their messages; this is a particularly helpful feature for non-native speakers and for members who intentionally do not wish to engage synchronously (Sivunen & Valo, 2006). Email can be useful when users want to communicate something private with one team member and it has the added advantage of offering a search facility, unlike some other tools. The lack of nonverbal cues can be a disadvantage, however, because recipients might not understand a message correctly (Shachaf, 2008). Also, as email is asynchronous and responses are usually delayed, email does not suit urgent tasks. Discussion Forums Discussion forums or boards are typically used asynchronously and they are found in VLEs. In a forum, a user specifies the subject of the thread (or topic) and posts her contribution about that topic. Typically, other users respond when they have time, so this delayed interaction tends to lend itself to deeper discussions than would otherwise be typical using other types of tools (Sivunen & Valo, 2006). Because of the delayed response time, students have time to digest other students’ postings and contribute their own. They can also edit their own previous postings, if they wish. Another advantage of forums is that every posting in a thread is visible to everyone who has access to that forum (teachers or administrators can usually specify access rights in the VLE). On the other hand, this visibility can intimidate students who may be hesitant about posting their contributions. Lurkers (forum users who view but do not contribute) are common in forums, but teachers should not always view lurkers as problematic; some students who appear to be lurking may in fact be taking time to digest others’ postings and may be working on individual contributions. However, if a teacher finds that a student still has not engaged after a reasonable period of time (e.g., by the end of the first week of the project), the teacher should gently encourage the student to contribute by posting a congratulatory message to the individuals who have already contributed and encouraging those who have yet to reply to do so. By weaving or summarizing all the postings to-date, the instructor can also reduce lurking, particularly for students who find the volume of postings overwhelming (Salmon, 2011). Some forums enable users to turn on a setting that notifies them whenever a new posting

50

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

has been made; this feature can be helpful as it saves users from having to log in unnecessarily to check for updates. It might also be necessary for the teacher to intervene in a forum, if students are posting flaming comments or are being overly critical of others; on occasions flaming can occur when students have not had much experience with the “netiquette” of online communication (See Chapter 3, Netiquette). One of the disadvantages of forums relates to the delayed response time; students often need prompt responses to queries and, therefore, they sometimes prefer to use other tools such as email or instant messaging. For that reason, forums are better used for tasks that require deeper reflection rather than a “quick fix”. Chat Rooms and Instant Messaging Chat rooms are similar to instant messaging tools (e.g., Google Talk) in that they facilitate synchronous or real-time communication. Every user who is logged in to a chat session can see who else is logged in; this way, users know who is currently available to chat. While chat rooms tend to be used synchronously, an archive of the chat transcript is usually available for viewing indefinitely, which can be very convenient if some students cannot participate in a live chat session for some reason. Chat tends to be very effective for “quick fix” tasks, due to the real-time nature of the communications (Sivunen & Valo, 2006). Quite often, students cannot progress with a project until they get clarification on an assignment requirement or an update on progress from other students, so chat rooms can be useful in this regard. Shachaf (2008) found that chat was used mostly for “informal and spontaneous communication” (p. 138). Mobile phone text messaging can also be used for this purpose and is often preferred to fixed-line phones, as it enables mobility (Sivunen & Valo, 2006). One of the disadvantages of chat rooms is that there is little scope for reflection because all the students are participating in real time. Another disadvantage is that students can easily veer off-topic, especially if they are engaging in other online activities at the same time. It is sometimes necessary to “refresh” the chat at regular intervals, to ensure that all the messages are coming through; if users do not refresh the chat, multiple messages might be briefly delayed and then overlap one another. However, one of the main advantages of chat is that there is scope for instant clarification. In addition, when users incorporate emoticons into chat postings, it can help make up for the lack of visual cues. Due to the nature of the communication that tends to happen in chat rooms, many people find them to be more interactive and social than discussion forums. Shachaf (2008) found that the sometimes casual and spontaneous nature of chat amplified the negative effect of cultural diversity on team effectiveness, but at the same time, the lack of nonverbal communication also helped reduce the negative impact of cultural diversity.

Addressing Technology Challenges •

51

Collaborative Authoring Tools There are a variety of tools available for collaboratively authoring documents. Two commonly used tools are GoogleDocs and Wikispaces. Files created using GoogleDocs can be accessed and modified by everyone who has access, in real time. This tool also has the added advantage of a revision history, which shows who made changes and when. It is also possible to restore the document to a previous version, which is helpful if other users do not approve of a recent change. Students also have the option of adding comments to a document rather than editing it directly. Wikispaces documents are similar to GoogleDocs in that any authorized user can create or edit text. Like GoogleDocs, Wikispaces maintains a log of changes made, and it is possible to add comments to text. However, wikis can be cumbersome to use and users may require initial training (depending on the tool adopted). Some tools (e.g., pbwiki) can notify users if someone else has edited the document. Blogging tools can also be used to work collaboratively on ideas. While they are not usually used to prepare formal documents, they do lend themselves well to collaborative commenting and sharing of links and other resources. Many blogs are like online diaries, in that a user posts a blog entry about some topic that interests him, and others comment if they wish to do so. Other blogs look more like websites, in that entries might not appear to be reflective in nature. Either way, most blogging tools, such as Blogger.com and Wordpress.com, maintain an archive of blog postings, and they enable users to tag and categorize entries also (e.g., a blog entry about “virtual teamwork” could be tagged accordingly and stored with other similar entries, for easier retrieval by users later on). While blogging tools are often used for reflective learning exercises, they can also be used by students in virtual teams (e.g., teachers can ask students to maintain reflective blogs of their experiences participating in the teams, as in Flammia, Cleary, & Slattery, 2010; See also Appendix 1). Microblogging tools such as Twitter tend to be better for simply notifying people of interesting ideas or articles as each tweet is limited to 140 characters. Tools such as Prezi and Jing can be used to create animated presentations and screencasts (demonstrations of how something works on screen). Students might need to collaborate using these kinds of tools, depending on their course requirements. File Sharing and Other Tools Most VLEs contain some kind of “resources” area, where faculty can deposit documents. External storage tools, such as Dropbox and Google Drive, store all types of documents in the cloud, which means the files are not stored on the user’s local machine. The advantage of storing documents in a VLE or in the cloud is that every team member can access the files from any location, provided the document creator has granted access. Other helpful file sharing tools include Flickr

52

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

(for sharing images), Slideshare (for sharing presentation slides), and YouTube and Vimeo (for sharing videos). If students are working collaboratively on research papers, social bookmarking tools such as CiteULike, Delicious, Mendeley, and Zotero can be used to store and share references and links. While it is considered more of a social networking site, Facebook can be used by teams to manage resources and send messages to teammates. Tools such as GoToMeeting and Twiddla can be used to share screens and whiteboards with others online. Popular tools for brainstorming ideas include Mindmeister, Popplet, and Padlet. Project management tools include Doodle (for scheduling meetings), Basecamp, and Microsoft Project. An overview of various collaboration and communication tools can be found in Appendix 2. CHALLENGES WITH TOOLS AND OVERCOMING CHALLENGES WITH TECHNOLOGY While there are many challenges associated with working in virtual teams, it is possible to work around them, provided team members are aware of the challenges and how best to deal with them. Quite often, challenges relating to communication (See Chapter 3) are related to technology use. Technology-related challenges can arise when team members are: • • • • •

Communicating across time zones Not sufficiently computer-literate Not proficient in electronic communication Constrained in terms of budget available to purchase suitable tools Performing complex tasks

Communicating Across Time Zones As discussed in Chapters 3 and 6 on communication and culture, respectively, issues can arise when teammates are working across time zones. For example, videoconferencing sessions should ideally be scheduled at times that suit all team members. However, depending on their geographical location, time zone differences may mean that some participants will need to work late or commence work early. Ideally, arrangements should be made to ensure that videoconferencing sessions are rotated so they do not unfairly burden members in one time zone. When other tools are used for communication (e.g., email or discussion forums), consideration should also be given to the fact that teammates might not respond for a few days due to religious or public holidays (Anawati & Craig, 2006). Computer Literacy Sometimes technology challenges arise when team members lack the technical expertise to use more advanced technologies. Technical issues can distract a

Addressing Technology Challenges •

53

team member from engaging adequately, and these issues can subsequently lead to frustration and missed deadlines. In an educational setting, Salmon (2011) recommends not training students on how to use online collaboration technologies; instead, she recommends immersing students in the technological environment (most typically a VLE) as soon as possible and giving them realistic and achievable tasks to perform within a relatively short timeframe. That way, students learn how to use the technology quickly while they undertake relatively simple tasks. However, if team members request it, they should be directed to suitable resources (people and documents) that can help them resolve technical issues. If the team members are relatively new to using technology to collaborate, the leader should consider usability and the learning curve when selecting tools and technologies. Electronic Communication Challenges As discussed in Chapter 3, communication is a difficult process and it is made even more difficult when team members do not meet face-to-face. Oftentimes, team members are not attuned to the subtleties of online communication and therefore assume that communication styles that work face-to-face also transfer to online communication. Without facial expressions and body language, team members can misinterpret other team members’ messages, and this lack of visual cues can lead to confusion, lurking, and flaming, particularly when technologies such as email, discussion forums, and chat rooms are used to communicate (Salmon, 2011). As discussed in Chapter 3, netiquette refers to a list of guidelines that inform team members how to communicate and collaborate online. While many netiquette guidelines are available online, a leader can also devise project-specific guidelines. In addition to the communication challenges outlined above, team members also need to familiarize themselves with multimodal communication. In a videoconferencing session, for example, team members will probably have to review multiple panels or windows simultaneously; in addition to observing teammates on the screen, they may need to review the document being discussed, watch a video clip, and read a chat transcript from all participating members. For people new to virtual teamwork, this multimodal way of working can be particularly challenging. Furthermore, misunderstandings can arise when people are not comfortable communicating using these kinds of technologies; however, one way to ensure that miscommunications do not arise is for the leader to create a summary of the discussions and decisions made (Shachaf, 2008). Leaders can also ease the transition from one-way to multimodal communication by facilitating “getting to know you” videoconferencing sessions early in the project. That way, team members can familiarize themselves with the technology without having to worry about team deadlines and commitments.

54

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Infrastructural Constraints Quite often, leaders are constrained financially in terms of which technologies they can purchase and use. Furthermore, if a technology is new, or there has been a new version release for an existing tool, the leader will need to bear in mind issues such as installations, bug fixes, down-time, and how these issues might impact and delay team processes (Riopelle et al., 2003). Even well-established technologies, such as videoconferencing, can fail at inappropriate times, so the leader should always have a back-up plan such as using phone calls or email to communicate with team members. Other issues that need to be considered include file size limits when uploading and downloading files and other software and hardware compatibilities between team members (Cleary & Slattery, 2009; King & Majchrzak, 2003; Riopelle et al., 2003). Task Complexity It is vital that the communication technology matches the task demands if a virtual team is to be effective (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Riopelle et al., 2003). If a task is particularly complex and requires a high level of collaboration, then synchronous technologies such as videoconferencing or groupware (including chat) are required. For less complex tasks, email and discussion forums are usually sufficient. SELECTING APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY When charged with selecting technologies for virtual teamwork, the leader (or technology adopter) should first consider the abilities and limitations of the various technology options available to them (Larbi & Springfield, 2004). Riopelle et al. (2003) propose that there is no simple solution to selecting technology for virtual teamwork; instead, leaders should choose technologies that “best fit their situation, considering both task and context” (p. 262). King and Majchrzak (2003) identified four common themes that must be addressed by people exploring technology options for virtual teams. They recommend that collaborative tools are interoperable with other tools; they must facilitate sharing but also take due cognizance of issues relating to information security; they should facilitate search and retrieval processes; and they should enable multimedia capture. In their study of technology choice in Finnish virtual teams, Sivunen and Valo (2006) found that technology choice in organizational settings was based on four factors. The first two factors—accessibility and social distance—relate to the person using the technology; the other two factors—idea sharing and informing— relate to the nature of the task being undertaken. When deciding which tools to adopt, leaders should consider the accessibility of tools, the physical and social distance between members, and the urgency and nature of the task. Flammia et

Addressing Technology Challenges •

55

al. (2007) found that “effective technology use facilitates information sharing and knowledge creation” (p. 2). In terms of best practice when choosing technology, Riopelle et al. (2003) propose that technology adopters consider the following: • The reliability of the technologies and how their failure may impact team members’ participation. Phone and network infrastructures need to be reliable for audio- and videoconferencing sessions. A back-up plan needs to be in place in the event of outages. • How different cultures may have preferences for certain technologies and styles of communication. Depending on levels of language proficiency, some team members may prefer to use email rather than participate in videoconferencing sessions. • Restrictions on team members’ ability to share information or to work from home outside of normal working hours. It might be necessary for team members to work outside normal working hours if more than one time zone is involved. In this event, technologies need to be accessible off-site, and team members may need access permissions. • Problems with synchronous communication if spanning more than six time zones. If multiple time zones are involved, care has to be taken to ensure that no location is regularly affected by unsociable working hours. • Potential downtime if new or untested technologies are being considered for adoption. Technical support must be available to team members. • Possible technology limitations if teams grow in size, as licensing issues and file size constraints may become an issue. • Task complexity. As outlined earlier, the nature and complexity of the task will determine which technologies are most appropriate. SUMMARY Virtual teams must choose technologies carefully because poor technology choices can have serious implications for the success of projects. While virtual team members sometimes have little control over which technologies they use (particularly in student virtual teams, where certain platforms may be preferred by instructors), team members should still be aware of the different types of communication tools and how they might best be utilized to ensure a successful project outcome. At their most basic level, communication tools are often classified as synchronous or asynchronous, depending on whether or not they facilitate real-time communication. Tools can also be classified on a continuum ranging from lean to rich, depending on the nature of the exchanges they facilitate. Even though rich media offer more support for teams working on tasks, particularly in the early stages of a project, there are occasions when lean media might be preferable.

56

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Another approach to choosing technology is to consider the types of tasks that the tools facilitate. For example, some tools support collaborative authoring, others facilitate videoconferencing, and others support live chat sessions. Some tools can facilitate several or all of these tasks simultaneously. It is important that team members (particularly leaders) know how to overcome the various challenges associated with using technology for virtual teamwork. Challenges can include communicating across time zones, lack of computer-literacy amongst team members, and budgetary constraints that hinder the purchase of appropriate technology. By being aware of the available technologies, and the inherent advantages and disadvantages of each type for virtual teamwork, team members should be able to make appropriate technology choices.

CHAPTER 5

ADDRESSING MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

Virtual team members require extra attention from leaders to ensure that employees continue to feel connected to the larger organization and its goals. —Director of Communications at a global aerospace and defense company INTRODUCTION While a distinction is sometimes made between leaders and managers, in this chapter we will use the two terms interchangeably to mean those individuals charged with the responsibility for providing a clearly defined structure and unambiguous guidelines for team members and who both monitor the collaborative efforts of the team and serve as a mentor and role model. In many organizations, the team leader will be a project manager. However, in some cases a leader may fulfill a different role within the organization; there are even some leaders who emerge within self-managing teams without being officially appointed to the role. In any case, leaders play a crucial role in a team’s performance and effectiveness. Virtual Teams in Higher Education: A Handbook for Students and Teachers, pages 57–84. Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing 57 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

58

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Of course, management structures within organizations are clearly defined while students in virtual teams must create their own leadership structures, and student leaders may face slightly different challenges from those faced by professionals. However, it is important for students to be aware of the best practices of professionals and to learn from and, perhaps, emulate the way leaders in organizations handle management challenges. For that reason, much of the research presented in this chapter is drawn from studies conducted in the workplace. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEADING COLLOCATED AND VIRTUAL TEAMS Leaders of virtual teams face many of the same challenges as leaders of collocated teams; however, they must also deal with several challenges that are unique to virtual environments. These challenges include geographic distance, cultural diversity, logistical challenges, and the reliance on computer-mediated communication (Kayworth & Leidner, 2002). Undeniably, the increasing reliance on virtual teams by corporations has posed some unique challenges for team leaders (Gallenkamp, Assmann, Drescher, Picot, & Welpe, 2011). This paradigm shift in the way organizations function requires that leaders develop new skill sets, capabilities, and attitudes in order to succeed (Eissa, Fox, Webster, & Kim, 2012; Lilian, 2014; Purvanova & Bono, 2009). However, while leaders must adapt to the challenges of working in a virtual environment, their primary goals have not changed; leaders still seek to promote the joint efforts of teams and enhance their performance by directing, motivating, and inspiring team members and by fostering an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect within the team (Lilian, 2014). In order to achieve these goals, leaders need to engage in strategic planning before a project begins; they need to take steps to facilitate the starting phase of the project, which is crucial to the team’s functioning and success; they need to carefully monitor activities throughout the course of the project while mentoring and coaching both the team and individual members; and, they need to structure meaningful activities to mark the conclusion of the project and to gather data that may be relevant to future collaborations. Above all, the leader must serve as a role model for team members and set the tone for the collaborative work. Davis (2004) calls upon the wisdom of the Tao Te Ching, which states that “leadership emerges from a state of being that transcends the individual leader and is then shaped by a mixture of his or her character and circumstances” (p. 47). He argues that the internal state of the team is a reflection of the internal state of the team’s leader. If the team’s leader is confused, untrusting of others, and rigid, the team will duplicate these qualities within it. On the other hand, if the leader is internally clear, trusting of others, and flexible, the team will develop these qualities instead. (Davis, 2004, p. 53)

Addressing Management Challenges •

59

Bell and Kozlowski (2002) have stated that there are two primary leadership functions in virtual teams: performance management and team development. In order to achieve these two functions, leaders must play various roles at different phases in the project lifecycle. The lifecycle of virtual team projects can be divided into four broad phases: planning, starting, working, and wrapping-up (Zander, Zettinig, & Mäkelä, 2013). Team leaders play key roles in each of these phases, and some of the work they do spans all four phases. THE PLANNING PHASE Leaders of virtual teams are responsible for building a team’s culture. Often, the planning that team leaders do before the inception of a project plays a vital role in ensuring the team’s success and in establishing a cooperative and supportive atmosphere within the team. Before the beginning of the project, team leaders can set up a reward system to encourage participation among team members; team-based incentives are beneficial to emphasize the importance of cooperation among team members (Mukherjee, Lahiri, Mukherjee, & Billing, 2012). In student teams, leaders will not be able to offer rewards, but faculty members can support student leaders by building peer evaluation into the project and giving students an opportunity to recognize their teammates’ contributions. Such peer evaluations can be worth a percentage of each student’s final grade. Student leaders can also inspire their teammates to participate fully by offering encouragement and using empathetic language (See Transformational Leadership). As part of the Planning Phase, leaders can also select the technologies that will be used by the team for communication and collaboration. If team members are not likely to be familiar with any of the technologies selected, the team leader should plan to provide training and support to ensure that all members can use the technology effectively. THE STARTING PHASE In the initial phase of a project’s lifecycle, team leaders are charged with many responsibilities. Team members’ first impressions of their leader, of one another, and of the team as a whole are crucial to the effective functioning of the team. Team leaders have responsibility for establishing a positive team climate and for helping team members build relationships and develop trust. There are many steps a leader can take to foster relationship building and to get a team project off to a good start. These steps include: • • • • •

Plan initial meetings, “face time,” and/or introductory activities Set and align goals Define tasks and assign roles Select appropriate technology and provide training and support Establish team processes and standards

60

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

• Establish communication guidelines and encourage knowledge sharing • Foster the development of trust Plan Initial Meetings Although some researchers (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000; Rutkowski, Vogel, Van Genuchten, Bemelmans, & Favier, 2002; Suchan & Hayzak, 2001) stress the importance of having an initial face-to-face kick-off meeting for virtual projects, such a meeting is often not an option for widely dispersed teams due to time and budget constraints. However, there are many other ways to give team members an opportunity to get to know one another at the start of a project. Leaders can create expert directories that include information on the education, expertise, and experience of all team members (Malhotra, Majchrzak, & Rosen, 2007). Such directories can serve to raise awareness among the team of the knowledge and skills that each member brings to the joint project. This awareness will help team members develop trust based on initial impressions of their teammates’ abilities and will make them more reliant on one another in completing project tasks (Mortensen & Hinds, 2002). Another approach that can be used in conjunction with an expert directory is a digital yearbook that features “pictures of the team members and their interests” (Hunsaker & Hunsaker, 2008, p. 93). While the expert directory focuses on professional experience and qualifications, the digital yearbook offers insight into the team members on a personal level; such insight may help teammates begin to establish social relationships, which in turn can help to foster the development of trust. In addition to providing background information, it is important that leaders set aside time for team members to engage in introductory activities whose primary function is social. While this “face time” may not necessarily involve seeing the faces of teammates, it should be time set aside for team members to share information about their backgrounds, their homes, their work environments, and other aspects of their lives that will help their teammates understand how their circumstances may influence their behavior within the team (Zander et al., 2013). These icebreaking activities will be especially important to members of collectivist cultures who need personal introductions and interaction to help them build trust (Zander et al., 2013). Team leaders are responsible for scheduling time for introductory socialization and for structuring such interaction. Leaders can also serve as role models for team members by taking the first step and sharing information about themselves in an open manner. The more team members know about one another from the beginning of the project, the easier it will be for them to see one another as individuals and to develop common ground. The enhanced understanding gained from initial socialization typically has the effect of reducing conflict and increasing motivation within virtual teams (Furst, Reeves, Rosen, & Blackburn, 2004).

Addressing Management Challenges •

61

Set and Align Goals Before a project begins, the team leader may wish to develop a mission statement for the project. This project mission should be clearly communicated to the team so that all team members understand precisely the common goal that they are striving to achieve (Hunsaker & Hunsaker, 2008). Goal alignment is a major challenge for leaders of virtual teams because of the diversity of team members and the difficulty of immediately detecting goal conflicts in a virtual environment (Zander et al., 2013). It is not uncommon for individuals to experience conflict between the roles they play in their local work environment and those they play within the virtual team. An individual may have long-term goals and priorities in the local environment that are rooted in their national culture and/or in the culture of their home organization; these goals may not align with the goals of the particular virtual team project. Zander et al. (2013) give an example of conflicting goals within a medical equipment R&D team: [I]f the US leader of a virtual team wants to optimize for maximum short term profit for the firm while the Scandinavian colleague is trying to discover new significant knowledge that will benefit society at large, and the Chinese colleague is trying to achieve a strong reputation in [his] own local environment, this will have an impact on how these team members behave and interact in their global virtual team. (p. 230)

Because of the potential for goal conflicts like this one, the team leader should be sure to state the project goals in very explicit terms. Also, in global settings, leaders need to be aware that all team members may not share the same approach to work. For example, some cultures emphasize the importance of economic growth and prosperity above all other considerations; these cultures are masculine societies in which achievement and material rewards are highly valued (See Chapter 6, The Masculinity/Femininity Dimension). Other cultures, however, place a far greater emphasis on sustainability and environmental concerns; these cultures are feminine societies in which relationships and quality of life are important values. Often, team members assume that their values are shared by the team and act accordingly. For example, in a study of German, U.S., and Indian team members working for a large high-technology multinational company, Cramton and Hinds (2014) found “that promotion and rewards were of intense interest to the Indian developers, particularly given the strong social norms in India favoring position-based authority and the red-hot technology job market” (p. 1066). One young Indian developer commented on the external pressures from family and friends to achieve a promotion and stated that they would think something was wrong if he did not advance in his position rapidly. The German and U.S. developers who tended to be older did not have the same expectations for advancement “across multiple hierarchical levels” (Cramton & Hinds, 2014, p. 1066).

62

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Team members may also experience conflict because they are working on a number of projects at the same time with a variety of competing priorities related to different geographic locations, business units, or clients. For this reason, it can be difficult for virtual team members to understand how their efforts fit into the larger mission of any one particular project. In order to achieve goal alignment, leaders need to extrapolate from the overarching goals of the project as a whole to the individual tasks or groups of tasks that need to be accomplished to achieve the desired end result. It is valuable for leaders to initiate discussions of project goals as they relate to the specific tasks to be performed by the team. Involving team members in a discussion of project goals can help align the diverse expectations of team members and foster trust within the team. A thorough discussion of the purpose of the project, its relationship to other organizational goals, and the roles that team members will play in achieving those goals can help team members develop a shared vision (Krumm, Terwiel, & Hertel, 2013). In student virtual team projects, faculty members can emphasize the relationship of the project to course goals and learning objectives. Define Tasks and Assign Roles It is the leader’s responsibility to clearly define the tasks that need to be carried out in order to complete the project. The leader should assign specific roles to team members to ensure that all tasks are completed and to avoid duplication of work. Clear delineation of roles and responsibilities also helps to prevent taskrelated conflict within a team. The leader should clearly state the tasks that each team member is expected to accomplish. Having explicitly stated responsibilities within the team helps team members feel a sense of belonging to the team and helps reduce the anxiety and ambiguity that some individuals may feel at the outset of a virtual team project. Establishing goals, clarifying expectations, and communicating task directives are important leadership functions that contribute to the development of trust in virtual teams (Beranek, 2000; Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998; Jawadi, 2013). When assigning roles and responsibilities, leaders can discuss how the knowledge and skills of each team member contribute to the project and how roles were assigned based on individual expertise and experience. This discussion will help to reinforce trust in the team and will also facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing as team members will have a basis upon which to coordinate their activities. Clear division of tasks leads to task interdependence and a sense of connectedness among team members (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Verburg, Bosch-Sijtsems, & Vartiainen, 2013). Motivation may also be enhanced when team members feel that their contributions are being acknowledged. In a study of undergraduate business students and graduate students in an MBA program at two universities in Central Taiwan, Fan, Chen, Wang, and Chen (2014) found that team members who received emails with instructions that contained empathetic language and appreciation for their work exhibited higher creative performance

Addressing Management Challenges •

63

than those students who received emails containing demanding language and warnings regarding the negative consequences of failure to perform well. In the workplace, team members will be motivated by positive performance evaluations and performance-based rewards and bonuses (Coppola, Hiltz, & Rotter, 2004). In the classroom, students will be motivated by grades and the desire to gain experience relevant to their professional goals. Select Appropriate Technology and Provide Training and Support Team leaders are frequently charged with the task of selecting the information and communication technologies (ICTs) that their teams will use for a project. Although some restrictions may be placed on their choice due to corporate policies or budgetary constraints, most leaders have some latitude to determine how team members will use technology for communication and for the completion of all their assigned tasks. Team leaders’ technology selection may be influenced by many factors, including the nature of the project and the geographic distribution of the team members. Team leaders may select a range of technologies to be used for different types of tasks and communication; for example, leaders may use videoconferences or meeting software like WebEx for meetings to include all team members at the beginning of the project and at key milestones. For routine communication, leaders may rely on email or other text-based forms of communication, and they may set in place protocols for storing and accessing information using a team website. In addition to selecting the collaborative tools the team will use, leaders must establish guidelines that explicitly state how team members should use the tools. Effective team leaders will also provide training for team members’ use of ICTs and technical support for any problems they may encounter. Leaders may select group decision-making tools to facilitate meetings and brainstorming sessions. Additionally, leaders will provide team members with opportunities to use technology for social communication. Finally, team leaders will use technology to establish a virtual presence and to keep team members engaged in the project by communicating with individual team members as well as with the team as whole and by posting announcements and initiating discussion threads. Leaders will select and use a mixture of lean and rich media and synchronous and asynchronous communication to establish effective member–member and leader–member communication within the team (See Chapter 4). Establish Team Processes and Standards In addition to defining tasks and assigning roles, team leaders must establish the processes that team members will use to carry out their assigned roles and the standards for their collaborative work. Even more than collocated teams, virtual teams require structured processes for coordinating their work (Bell & Kozlows-

64

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

ki, 2002). Without explicit processes in place, teams may work at cross purposes, fail to exchange information and transfer knowledge, and ultimately fall short of achieving their goals. When possible, having team members create standards jointly will greatly enhance team performance and the success of the collaboration. Team members will have a greater sense of involvement in a project when they have contributed to the development of the processes and standards for the team. Additionally, engaging team members in the creation of team processes may bring to light potential areas of misunderstanding or conflict that can then be addressed before the project gets underway (Huang, Wei, Watson, & Tan, 2003; Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001). While coordination of activities may occur spontaneously in collocated teams, virtual teams require formal structure and explicit guidelines to ensure that the activities of all team members flow together and contribute to the accomplishment of the team’s objectives. Without team processes, members may feel disconnected from their teammates and, as a result, their morale and motivation may suffer. Leaders need to set up guidelines for communication, knowledge transfer, and decision making within the team. One of the most important considerations for effective virtual work is the establishment and maintenance of strong lines of communication. Establish Communication Guidelines and Encourage Knowledge Sharing Leaders need to establish communication guidelines to structure task-related exchanges, to provide guidelines for the use and coordination of tools, to encourage knowledge sharing, and to enhance social communication and relationship building within the team. Task-related Communication Team leaders must initiate communication at the start of the project and maintain communication both with the team as a whole and with individual members throughout the lifecycle of the project. Effective leaders will establish routines of communication; these routines are standard operating procedures to be followed by the team. In addition to establishing the procedures, leaders need to provide team members with any necessary training and motivate them to comply with the routines (Gersick & Hackman, 1990). In this way, leaders can serve as role models for team members by demonstrating the importance of early and consistent communication. In virtual teamwork, effective leaders are evaluated by their team members as “being present” (Avolio, Sosik, Kahai, & Baker, 2014). Social presence is the degree of awareness that an individual has of her interaction partner (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976). Social presence theory evaluates technologies based on their ability to provide nonverbal cues and other information that replicates the experience of face-toface communication; a medium like email provides very little awareness of one’s

Addressing Management Challenges •

65

communication partner, while a medium like videoconferencing provides much more awareness through visual and auditory cues. Although Short et al. (1976) have stated that computer-mediated communication is not conducive to relationship building and social communication, Zigurs (2003) has suggested that in virtual teams it is possible for leaders to use various communication media to create a “telepresence.” She explains that telepresence is “the experience or sense of being present in a place different from one’s physical location” (p. 344). Telepresence is defined in terms of two dimensions: vividness and interactivity (Steuer, 1992). Vividness is related to media richness—that is, to the ability of a medium to transmit sensory input; interactivity has to do with the ability of users to manipulate the medium’s form or content. By establishing a strong social presence, a leader can facilitate the personal engagement of team members and help them develop a sense of group cohesion. Beyond modeling effective communication, leaders must establish guidelines for team members to follow when communicating with one another. These guidelines should address: • the selection of different media for various communication tasks • a structure for frequent communication at regular intervals • protocols for the content of communication to prevent inappropriate exchanges that could lead to relational conflict • a timeframe for responding to questions and requests from teammates Typically, virtual team members have a range of communication media to choose from when communicating with one another. Leaders may recommend particular media for particular types of communication. For example, videoconferencing or chat may be useful when team members are holding initial meetings or seeking to socialize with one another. Lean media like email may be more appropriate when team members are merely exchanging factual information or asking for clarification on a point. Even more specifically, leaders may develop a set of protocols for email use that cover the appropriate level of formality that should be used in such messages or that require that all requests be stated explicitly in the final paragraph of a message. Leaders may also require that team members respond to one another’s requests and questions within a specified timeframe (e.g., within 48 hours). Coordination Tools Team members need to have shared databases and common repositories for storing documents on a company or team website. They also need to have facilities for videoconferencing and real-time chats as well as a space for socializing. Providing team members with a shared space for storing all materials related to the project is an important first step in coordinating team activities and facilitating knowledge sharing within the team. However, team members also need guidance regarding precisely how the shared space is to be used. It is the responsibility of

66

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

team leaders to establish and monitor intragroup processes. For example, leaders should provide guidelines for use of the shared workspace, including: • • • • • •

Where documents should be shared How files should be named How versions of documents should be tracked How documents should be archived Where task-related questions/answers should be posted Where data should be stored

In addition to giving team members guidance about how to exchange data and drafts in the shared workspace, leaders will need to provide team members with opportunities for social communication. Social Space Employees working in collocated teams have numerous opportunities for casual social interactions; such interactions are frequently referred to as “water cooler” or “coffee machine” talks. These impromptu discussions often involve the exchange of information on both personal and work-related topics. To create a similar social experience for members of virtual teams, Leonard (2011) suggests the creation of a bulletin board on the company’s intranet where individuals can share news about their lives outside of work and even post family photographs. Many corporations are now embracing the use of social media for communication among employees. For team leaders, the use of social media can increase connections with team members at a personal and individual level (Dolezalek, 2009). For team members, the use of social media can help reduce feelings of distance and isolation. Many Fortune 500 companies use virtual world platforms (e.g., Second Life, Open Wonderland, and OpenSim) to provide a social space for employees who are geographically dispersed (Bessière, Ellis, & Kellogg, 2009; Cherbakov, Brunner, Lu, & Smart, 2009). In corporations, blogs are one of the most common forms of social media used by members of virtual teams. Blogs are also useful for students participating in virtual teams both as reflective diaries and as a means of social interaction with their teammates. In a study of undergraduate students in Canada, Chiu and Staples (2013) found that self-disclosure through blogs helped to reduce faultlines within geographically distributed virtual teams. When students engaged in self-disclosure through blogging about their personal interests, their teammates were able to gain a better understanding of their mental models and approaches to tasks. Established routines of communication can greatly improve team performance, particularly when they include both task-related and social exchanges. Effective communication strategies can also facilitate knowledge management within teams.

Addressing Management Challenges •

67

Knowledge Management Knowledge management encompasses the gathering, developing, sharing, distributing, and using of information assets. To be successful, virtual teams must have members who share their knowledge freely with one another (Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2007). Knowledge sharing involves both the distribution of existing knowledge within the team and the importing of new knowledge from outside the team (Rosen, Furst, & Blackburn, 2007). Team members are more likely to share knowledge with colleagues whom they perceive as having a common purpose (McNeil, 2003). Ideally, the knowledge of one team member will be presented in a way that can be understood and used by other team members (Ipe, 2003; Pangil & Chan, 2014). To manage shared knowledge and to ensure effective knowledge transfer, leaders need to put into place both coordination tools and “rules to facilitate decision-making coordination” (Zander et al., 2013, p. 234). Information management systems have the potential to increase feelings of group cohesion and reduce perceptions of distance. The accessibility of well-organized information can decrease feelings of isolation and anonymity within teams and increase perceptions of social control (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014); as a result, individuals may be more likely to share information with their teammates. Knowledge transfer, like many other aspects of virtual collaboration, is greatly enhanced when team members have developed trusting relationships with one another. Fostering the Development of Trust Perhaps one of the most crucial challenges leaders face is the fostering of trust within a team. Trust in virtual teams can be defined as “the degree of intention or willingness to depend on other virtual team members” (Chang, Chuang, & Chao, 2011, p. 310); it is based on the belief that others will behave in a predictable manner (Knoll & Jarvenpaa, 1998). The development of trust is crucial to the success of virtual teams. Trust has to do with the perception individuals have of the ability, integrity, and benevolence of teammates. Many actions that leaders take at the start of a virtual team project can help foster trust. When team members are given an opportunity to get to know one another socially and to gain an understanding of the diverse knowledge and experience each member contributes to the team, they are more likely to develop trusting relationships. Having clearly defined roles and relationships and early task-related communication has also been shown to enhance trust within teams. In fact, all the steps described previously in this section will contribute to the development of trust. Lewicki and Bunker (1996) proposed a three-stage model for the development of trust in virtual teams: calculus-based trust, knowledge-based trust, and identification-based trust. In the first stage, calculus-based trust, team members are motivated to work together because they recognize the benefits of doing so even though they know little about one another; this stage is analogous to swift

68

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

trust. At this stage, the leader should make clear the necessity of each member contributing to the work and following through on assigned tasks. In the second stage, knowledge-based trust, team members have had an opportunity to observe one another’s behaviors and to have a basis for expecting that teammates will fulfill obligations based on past performance. The third stage, identification-based trust, is the deepest form of trust; trust at this stage results from a recognition of shared values and goals. At this stage, team members believe that they can rely on one another to act in the best interests of the team. Trust is also likely to be enhanced when team members develop shared mental models; shared mental models are “team members’ shared, organized understanding and mental representation of knowledge about key elements of the team’s relevant environment” (Mohammed & Dumville, 2001, p. 90). Leaders can facilitate the development of shared mental models by giving the team opportunities to gain an understanding of their teammates’ work situations. It is also useful for team members to understand what the resource requirements and other needs of their teammates are likely to be (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993). When team members share ideas about what constitutes effective communication, they are more likely to communicate freely and to have less anxiety about their interactions. Shared mental models are particularly important when teams are composed of members of diverse cultures as the models will provide a common frame of reference (See Chapter 6, Common Ground and Shared Mental Models). THE WORKING PHASE Once the project has gotten underway, team leaders have many ongoing responsibilities as the team works to meet its goals. These responsibilities include: • • • • • • • •

Structuring team meetings Providing feedback to the team and to individual members Monitoring the team’s performance Troubleshooting for problems within the team Mentoring and coaching team members Creating a team identity and fostering a feeling of oneness Preventing and managing conflict Addressing cultural challenges

Structuring Team Meetings As part of the routines of communication established for the team, leaders should hold meetings involving all team members on a regular basis; these meetings will help keep team members engaged with the project and with one another. Meetings are even more important in virtual teams than in collocated teams; they provide opportunities for team members to build relationships, move forward with collaborative tasks, and ensure that they are all aligned with the project goals

Addressing Management Challenges •

69

(Hambley, O’Neill, & Kline, 2007). Team leaders must plan carefully for meetings and distribute any relevant materials several days before the meeting so that team members have time to review them (White, 2014). To make the most of meetings, Malhotra et al. (2007) suggest that leaders set up discussion threads ahead of time so that team members can begin discussing relevant issues. They also advise requiring members to post progress reports prior to the meeting. At the start of the meeting, time should be allotted for team members to engage in some social communication and connect with one another as individuals. The meeting should be well organized with a structured agenda. To keep members engaged during the meeting and prevent nonparticipation, leaders can require periodic “check-ins” using instant messaging. Malhotra et al. (2007) give an example of a leader who used an electronic voting tool to require members to vote on whether they were satisfied with the resolution of each issue being discussed. Leaders should be prepared to call by name those team members who have not spoken for some time in the meeting (White, 2014). They also need to establish a protocol for turn taking to prevent a few team members from dominating the discussion (Hunsaker & Hunsaker, 2008). At the conclusion of the meeting, the team should generate a list of action items to be carried out before the next meeting; the meeting minutes should be posted on the team workspace right after the meeting. It is important that leaders actively seek feedback about meetings from team members since they will not be able to rely on informal water cooler communication (White, 2014). In between meetings, leaders should maintain contact with the team as a whole and with individual team members. Providing Feedback to the Team and to Individual Members Research on virtual teamwork stresses the importance of a team leader maintaining strong lines of communication with the team and with individual team members (Brewer, 2010; LaBrosse, 2008; Leonard, 2011; Serrat, 2009). However, to be effective, a leader must do more than send frequent email messages; leaders must find ways to establish a strong virtual presence. Zigurs (2003) states that “leaders need to learn how to use the vividness and interactivity of media to make their presence felt in a positive way, and to exercise appropriate influence to move the team forward” (p. 344). The leader should initiate and maintain a pattern of frequent communication with the team as a whole and of one-on-one interactions with individual team members; he or she should also foster discussion among the team members (Brewer, 2010; LaBrosse, 2008; Leonard, 2011; Serrat, 2009). Writing about the challenges of virtual teamwork, Zaccaro and Bader (2003) state that team leaders are primarily problem solvers who must detect any issues within the team that could prevent the team from performing effectively and fulfilling its goals. They go on to suggest that “[t]hese leadership responsibilities represent three roles: team liaison, team direction setter, and team operational coordinator” (p. 381).

70

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

As the team liaison, a leader must facilitate communication among team members, give clear direction regarding tasks, and coordinate the activities of the team. By coordinating the activities of the team, the leader can help members establish shared work habits that will foster team cohesion (Jawadi, 2013). As the team direction setter, a leader must maintain the team’s focus on the goals established at the start of the project; she must keep the team on track to achieve those goals by ensuring that each member understands and fulfills his or her individual role within the team and that the team as a whole coordinates its activities successfully. Finally, as the team operational coordinator, a leader must oversee the team’s performance and monitor the activities of team members. Monitoring and Troubleshooting Leaders of virtual teams need to maintain constant communication with team members and need to monitor the activity of team members on an ongoing basis (Malhotra et al., 2007). The 24/7 nature of virtual environments can be quite challenging for leaders since, in geographically distributed teams, the workday never really ends. Some members of the team are likely to be working at any given time during a 24-hour period. The need to stay in touch with all team members can be daunting for an individual who must maintain contact outside of his normal working hours. DeRosa, Hantula, Kock, and D’Arcy (2004) give an example of a typical virtual team where just as the team members in Texas are ending their workday, their teammates in Hawaii are starting work. Later, when the team members in Hawaii complete their workday, they send their contribution on to teammates in Mumbai who are beginning their day. Then, when the team members in Mumbai complete their work, they send it back to their teammates in Texas. In some cases, particularly in teams that are widely dispersed geographically, other team members may assist with leadership functions. In fact, in student teams, it is often useful to have a team leader in each geographic location (Flammia, Cleary, & Slattery, 2010). This approach works well if the leaders coordinate their efforts to monitor the project. Although the routines and processes put in place by the leader at the start of a project are crucial to the success of virtual collaboration, these structures may need to be revisited and revised when change occurs during the lifecycle of the project. Leaders need to monitor very closely any changes in the external conditions affecting the team; changed deadlines, revised team goals, or modified task specifications need to be addressed as soon as they occur (Hunsaker & Hunsaker, 2008). The changes need to be communicated to all team members, and the leader needs to help the team adjust to these changes as smoothly as possible. Additionally, leaders must be alert to detect any problems that might arise within the team (DeRosa et al., 2004); these problems may include communication breakdowns within the team, role ambiguity among team members, lack of commitment to the team on the part of some members, and failure to meet team objectives. In virtual collaborations, it is possible for problems within the team to

Addressing Management Challenges •

71

go undetected longer than they might in collocated teams and, therefore, for the problems to escalate before they are addressed (Chase, 1999). For this reason, leaders must be vigilant and consistent in monitoring the performance and relationships of the team as a whole and of individual team members. To be effective, a leader must pay attention for any indications of conflict within the team or for the development of faultlines. With experience, leaders will develop a sense of when they need to intervene to avert the escalation of conflict or to keep team members engaged and focused. To prevent communication breakdowns, leaders must continually reinforce team processes and routines of communication established at the start of the project. Additionally, leaders must work to ensure that all members are fully committed to and engaged in the team project. Because most team members will experience the demands of local concerns competing for their attention, leaders must find ways to make sure that members perceive their participation in the team as significant for their own personal growth; those members who believe that the team experience is valuable to their own careers are more likely to be actively engaged in the project (Berry, 2011; Kerber & Buono, 2004; Ocker, Huang, BenbunanFich, & Hiltz, 2011). Often team leaders can enhance the engagement of team members and the success of the team through mentoring and coaching activities. Mentoring and Coaching Team Members Perhaps more than in many collocated teams, virtual team leaders need to play the roles of mentor and coach. In addition to having a strong virtual presence when communicating with the team as a group, leaders can motivate and inspire individual members by communicating with them on a regular basis; ideally, such consistent communication will help to reinforce the trust established at the outset of a project. Leaders in the workplace will typically focus on the career goals and professional advancement of team members when coaching them, while student leaders are more likely to help classmates develop and hone their skills; however, in both instances leaders will seek to establish personal relationships based on trust and respect. Student leaders can learn from the mentoring strategies used by professionals and adapt those strategies to their own interactions with teammates. Gail Mote, a trainer, organizational development catalyst, and coach, recommends that leaders keep a file on each employee that highlights “birthdays, anniversaries, family members and any special events such as certifications, graduations or volunteer activities” (2014, p. 15). It is also important for leaders to select the most appropriate medium for various types of communication. For example, if employees are experiencing difficulties or if they need additional support, a telephone call or videoconference would be a better choice than email for the communication. Team leaders can use a range of different technologies to establish and reinforce their virtual presence, depending on the nature of the communication. In addition to using social communication to help establish and maintain trusting relationships, leaders can help team members develop their skills and

72

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

knowledge by providing feedback and encouragement. They can also offer opportunities for individuals to engage in professional development both informally and through structured courses and seminars. Mentoring is a routine part of the behavior of effective team leaders; daily coaching can lead to the creation of what Gratton and Erickson (2007) call a “gift culture.” A gift culture is one in which support and mentoring are a routine part of the corporate activities; such a culture is the opposite of a more transactional culture in which all giving is based on an exchange. Employees are much more likely to flourish in a gift culture. At Nokia, employees receive mentoring from their first day on the job; this collaborative culture is one in which individuals receive “the gift of time” in the form of “hours spent on coaching and building networks” (Gratton & Erickson, 2007, p. 105). Although student leaders cannot offer opportunities for formal professional development, they can hold informal sessions with teammates to help them address particular challenges associated with their project; for example, the leader can offer training and support for technology use or can create a style guide to help students with their writing. Leaders are also more likely to motivate team members and to enhance their commitment to the team when they provide positive feedback and encouragement. The use of empathetic language when communicating with team members has been found to have a positive influence on their creativity (Fan et al., 2014). In general, a transformational leadership style (See Transformational Leadership) serves to facilitate virtual collaboration and improve the performance of individual members and the team as a whole. Having a reward structure in place can help maintain the motivation and commitment of employees. Both individual and team performance should be rewarded (Leonard, 2011). Leaders can highlight the achievements of various team members throughout the course of the project (Zander et al., 2013). Additionally, if possible, providing extra perks or monetary rewards for the team as a whole at the successful completion of the project is also a strong incentive. Although student leaders cannot provide monetary rewards, they can offer praise and recognize teammates for their accomplishments. When sending emails to the team or posting announcements in the team site, leaders can highlight the contributions of particular team members and thank them for their dedication to the success of the team. Leaders will also want to recognize the accomplishments of the team during the wrapping-up phase of the project (See Wrapping-Up Phase). Creating a Team Identity and Fostering a Feeling of Oneness Because global virtual teams span national, disciplinary, and organizational boundaries, team members may find it challenging to develop group cohesion and a sense of “oneness.” Team members may feel anxiety and uncertainty at the start of a new project when working with diverse others in a virtual setting, particularly those team members who do not have prior experience in virtual teamwork. It is the responsibility of the team leader to create a climate of cooperation within the team; the team-building activities described in the Starting Phase section are a

Addressing Management Challenges •

73

good way to help team members get to know one another and begin to develop social relationships. Beyond these activities, the leader must find ways to build a strong sense of shared identity within the team, a sense of “global-ness.” Once the project has started, it may be natural for team members to be focused only on completing their own tasks with little thought to the rest of the team, particularly when they are working on several other projects concurrently. Often local projects get more attention from team members simply because they are “local” and the leader or teammate asking for participation is in the office down the hall rather than three thousand miles away. However, team members are more likely to be fully engaged with virtual projects when their virtual team has a strong group identity. Global Identity Team leaders can help members develop a unique team identity and culture by fostering an atmosphere of trust and respect, by mentoring and motivating individual team members and the team as a whole, by uniting the team around a common mission, and by rewarding team members for their contributions to the team. All of these strategies are valuable to ensuring successful team functioning. However, to take a team from a place of functioning well to functioning at its highest potential, leaders will also need to find a way to help team members develop a “global identity.” An individual’s global identity is his “sense of belonging to and identification with the global work context” (Erez & Gati, 2004; Shokef & Erez, 2008). Developing a global identity broadens an individual’s view of the world; people who possess a global identity are accepting of cultural diversity and are able to see themselves as part of a multicultural group. By contrast, individuals who define themselves solely in terms of their local identity will be less inclusive and will only see themselves as part of a group consisting of members of their national culture or another narrowly defined group whose members are all similar to them and to one another (Shokef & Erez, 2008). When individuals develop a global identity, they perceive themselves not as belonging to one particular culture, but rather to the entire global community. This perspective will make it more likely that they will engage in open communication and information sharing with members of other cultures (Arnett, 2002). Team leaders with highly developed global identities can serve as role models for team members. They can demonstrate respect for cultural differences and willingness to adapt their communication style to prevent misunderstandings. By showing their openness to dissimilar perspectives and to learning about other cultures (Shokef & Erez, 2008), leaders can encourage team members to view diversity as an opportunity rather than an obstacle. Leaders can make it a point to emphasize the benefits of multiple perspectives and cite the findings of research that shows how culturally diverse teams have the potential to outperform homogenous teams due to their ability to bring together experience and expertise from a range of cultures, disciplines, and organizations (Siebdrat, Hoegl, & Ernst, 2009; Thompson & Caputo, 2009). If time permits, they can even call upon team members

74

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

to share information about their cultural backgrounds with the team periodically throughout the project; this brief socialization time may be scheduled at the start of meetings and planned to coincide with various cultural or national celebrations observed by team members. Finally, leaders must create a strong sense of a team mission. This mission should be introduced at the start of the project and then revisited and, if necessary, revised throughout the course of the project. The mission must be explicitly related to the project goals and to the individual tasks team members will perform. These tasks must also be interrelated in a transparent and meaningful way. As the project progresses, leaders should recognize the accomplishments of both individual team members and the team as a whole toward meeting project milestones and accomplishing intermediary goals. A clearly articulated goal common to all team members that is kept in mind throughout the lifecycle of the project will go a long way toward helping establish a sense of oneness in the team. Preventing and Managing Conflict Conflict may be defined as a situation in which two or more interdependent individuals have incompatible expectations, processes, values, or goals. Team leaders devote approximately 20 percent of their time to dealing with conflict (DuBrin, 2003). Conflicts may be more difficult both to detect and to manage in virtual teams (Hinds & Bailey, 2003). They are more difficult to detect because team members are geographically dispersed and often rely solely on computermediated communication. Conflicts are more difficult to manage because they may become entrenched before the team leader becomes aware of them. The three types of conflict that may occur in virtual teams are relational conflict, task conflict, and process conflict. Relational conflict has to do with interpersonal tensions within a team. Task conflict has to do with disagreement over approaches to a particular task, about objectives, and about the content of decisions. Process conflict involves disagreement over the teams’ methods and with how various aspects of the work should be handled. Differing ideas about resource delegation and the assignment of duties may lead to process conflicts. One effective tool that leaders can use to help prevent and address conflict is an online discussion board in the team’s shared workspace (Ferrazzi, 2012). Teams can use the discussion board to address problems when they arise rather than allowing issues to remain buried and grow into even more serious issues. Having a central location where relevant issues can be discussed openly by all team members will create feelings of equality and fair play, which will in turn foster an atmosphere of trust within the team. Such a forum can also help teams avoid agreements based on peer pressure or the desire not to be the only dissenting voice; often team members are reluctant to voice objections to ideas supported by the majority of the team. In an online discussion, however, individual team members may feel freer to raise concerns about a course of action or a particular decision, especially if such feedback can be posted anonymously (Ferrazzi, 2012).

Addressing Management Challenges •

75

Another effective technique is for the leader to post emails from team members regarding task-related issues together with her response to the issue in the team’s shared workspace. By doing so, the leader can maintain transparency regarding the team’s tasks and can clarify any confusion about each member’s roles and responsibilities. This approach can help address both task-related and processrelated conflicts. Relational conflicts can arise in any team, but they will be less likely to arise when team members have clearly defined roles and tasks and when the leader has fostered a climate of trust and cooperation within the team (Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999). When team members do not have a strong shared identity, they will be more likely to evaluate the actions of teammates in a negative light. Olson and Olson (2000) cite an example where team members in the United States cut short a videoconference with European colleagues without taking the time for a closing or farewells. The European colleagues were offended by this action; however, they were not aware of the pressures on their U.S. teammates to save money by keeping conferences short. At the same time, the U.S. teammates were not aware of the importance of taking the time for a proper farewell to their European colleagues. This incident, which could easily lead to relational conflict, occurred because the team members did not have a full understanding of one another’s situations and needs. The more knowledge of one another team members have, the less likely it is that such misunderstandings will occur. Relational conflicts may also arise as a result of disagreements about non-workrelated issues and may be the result of personality clashes; this type of conflict may be more difficult to detect than discord that is related to performing specific tasks or following team processes. To help prevent these conflicts, team leaders need to have continuous communication both with the team as a whole and with individual team members; they must be poised to detect any disharmonies within the team before they escalate into more serious conflicts that may detract from the performance of the team and erode team trust and unity. Those teams that have a robust conflict management strategy are likely to perform more effectively and to have greater member satisfaction (Daft, 1999; De Dreu, 2007; Tjosvold, 2008). Instead of avoiding discussion of conflict until it arises, effective leaders will be proactive in sharing an understanding of potential conflict situations with team members and offering strategies for addressing them. These potential situations may include task or role overlap, failure to follow established work processes, and failure to follow established communication norms. If team members are encouraged to share concerns about these situations with the leader, they may feel more confident of a positive resolution than if these situations are not dealt with until they begin to detract from the team’s performance. Of course, one reason conflicts are more difficult to manage in global virtual teams is that such teams are composed of culturally diverse members who have different means of expressing and resolving conflict (See Chapter 6, Conflict and Culture). Attribution Theory is useful when striving to understand how conflicts may develop.

76

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Attribution Theory and Conflict Psychologist Franz Heider (1958) developed attribution theory, which states that people have a desire to explain the causes of behavior and events. He believed that human beings are compelled to seek explanations for the actions of others, and that by doing so they gain a feeling of power and control. Explanations of behavior are categorized as either internal or external attributions. Internal attributions infer that an individual’s behavior is caused by characteristics such as personality traits, abilities, attitudes, and feelings. External attributions conclude that a person’s behavior is caused by situational or environmental factors that the person cannot control such as traffic delays or technological glitches (e.g., the server is down, the computer crashes). Heider found that people were much more likely to attribute the behavior of others to internal characteristics such as personality traits while attributing their own behavior to external factors. Heider called this tendency the “fundamental attribution error.” In a virtual team setting, individuals are more likely to make internal attributions because they lack information about the work situation of their teammates. Attribution errors may lead to assumptions that will spark conflict. For example, if a teammate fails to respond to a message in a timely manner, an individual might assume that the teammate is unreliable or unprofessional. However, if that same individual was late in responding himself, he would attribute his failure to the pressure of external demands on his time. Attributing the behavior of teammates to personality traits may lead to conflict. Further, once conflict has occurred, internal attributions that blame the problem on personal characteristics of teammates are likely to cause relationships to deteriorate and trust to break down. Ideally, leaders will prevent these occurrences by establishing and maintaining open lines of communication that foster team members’ awareness of the work and personal situations of teammates. The better team members know and understand one another, the less likely they are to rely on internal attributions to explain behavior. For example, if team members know that a teammate will not be available at a particular time each week due to local obligations, they will not attribute a less-than-timely response to a query as an indication of unreliability or lack of commitment to the project. Conflict Resolution Styles If conflict has occurred within a team, the leader must take steps to resolve it as quickly as possible. However, conflict within teams, particularly task and process conflict, actually has the potential to enhance team performance; of course, the conflict resolution style used within the team will determine whether or not that potential is realized. There are five approaches to managing conflict in teams (notice that these are slightly different than the five different cultural approaches to managing conflict discussed in Chapter 6): avoidance, accommodation, competition, collaboration, and compromise. The avoidance style is essentially a denial of the existence of conflict and a failure to address the issue. The accommodation style involves one party in the conflict giving in simply to oblige the other party.

Addressing Management Challenges •

77

The competition style is an attempt by one party to seek his own interest with no regard for teammates. The collaboration style focuses on seeking outcomes that are mutually beneficial. The compromise style involves each side giving up something in order to reach a resolution; it is less satisfying to both parties involved in the conflict than the collaboration style. While there are more than two possible conflict resolutions styles that can be used in teams, in most situations, team leaders will do well to choose to use either an integrative or a distributive conflict management style. Integrative conflict management is a collaborative style that focuses on finding a solution that satisfies all team members. Distributive conflict management is the assertion of the leader’s authority to impose a solution. Task conflict and process conflict can be resolved either integratively or distributively, depending on the particular situation within a team. For example, in some instances it will be beneficial for all team members to weigh in on how a particular process should be performed, particularly if drawing on the expertise of diverse team members will lead to a creative solution to the issue. In other cases, it may be more efficient and practical to allow the team leader to settle minor conflicts related to task overlap or the unclear division of roles within the team. To prevent a disruption of team cohesiveness, it is important that relational conflict is resolved integratively. Using a distributive conflict resolution style to address interpersonal conflict is likely to disrupt harmony within the team and lead to lower performance (Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei, 2007; Liu, Magjuka, & Lee, 2008). In a study conducted with MBA students working in virtual teams, Paul, Seetharaman, Samarah, and Mykytyn (2005) found that those teams that used an integrative conflict resolution style performed better than teams using other conflict resolution styles. The integrative style is successful because it is a collaborative style that allows team members to participate in reaching a resolution. Given the highly interdependent nature of work in virtual teams, it is not surprising that allowing team members to play an active role in dealing with conflicts and challenges is the most effective way to maintain trust and motivation within the team. If team members do not already have competency in negotiation and conflict resolution skills, the team leader may seek out opportunities for them to receive training in these areas (Grosse, 2002; Iles & Hayers, 1997). Addressing Cultural Challenges Given the diverse nature of global virtual teams, it is important for leaders to possess both cultural sensitivity and cultural intelligence. Trivedi and Desai (2012) list “a global, multicultural mindset” and “greater sensitivity toward followers’ state of mind” among the new leadership skills required for virtual work (p. 25).

78

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Cultural Sensitivity Leaders of virtual teams face many challenges related to intercultural communication (See Chapter 6); effective communication with diverse team members requires an understanding of cultural differences that may impact the perceptions and behaviors of team members. Currently, few organizations provide training in intercultural communication for team leaders (Goodman, 2012; Zakaria, 2013). To facilitate the development of cultural sensitivity, leaders, particularly those individuals with limited experience with other cultures, need to become aware of their own cultural beliefs and values and how those perspectives may influence their interactions both with individual team members and with the team as a whole (See Chapter 6). However, developing an awareness of and sensitivity to cultural differences is only the first step. Leaders will need to learn how to manage team members from different cultures (Grosse, 2002). Cultural differences may affect team members’ expectations of the leader and of teammates, their work habits, and their approach to decision making (Lisak & Erez, 2015). Team leaders will need to negotiate these differences in order to foster the development of a team culture. When crafting messages to the team, they will also need to take into account the different communication styles used by diverse individuals (Lilian, 2014). Cultural Intelligence Cultural intelligence is defined as the capability to function effectively in a multicultural environment (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Earley & Ang, 2003). Individuals who possess cultural intelligence can adapt successfully to interactions with culturally diverse others even though they may not possess extensive knowledge about other cultures. They are astute observers of cultural differences who pay attention to the behavior of others and adapt their own actions to enhance communication and understanding. Culturally intelligent individuals avoid relying on stereotypes to understand diverse others. People with high cultural intelligence are acutely aware of the communication styles, body language, and attitudes of members of other cultures and use their knowledge to interact in an empathetic and supportive manner. Livermore (2011) states that cultural intelligence can be enhanced by developing: 1.

2.

Drive. In order to develop cultural intelligence, an individual must be motivated to learn about other cultures. Keeping an open mind and seeking out opportunities to interact with culturally diverse others are important steps. It is helpful to view cultural differences as opportunities for growth rather than as obstacles to interaction. Knowledge. Rather than seeking to memorize a large number of facts about other cultures, it is useful to focus on how culture shapes the values, beliefs, and social norms of individuals. Also, learning about the history of a country or region can deepen one’s understanding of how

Addressing Management Challenges •

3.

4.

79

current values and behaviors are influenced by events in the past. Applying cultural heuristics can also be helpful to understand the types of differences that exist among cultures (e.g., differences in communication styles, social hierarchies, and attitudes toward risk). Strategy. Keeping a journal or blog of intercultural encounters may be useful to help gain perspective on how cultural differences influence behavior and to record personal growth and insights. Reflecting on experiences at work or in social situations may be helpful when seeking to change behaviors. Action. When taking action, it is important to “think on one’s feet” and strive to control emotional reactions, particularly when things do not go as anticipated.

Livermore stresses the fact that cultural intelligence is not innate, but rather it is a capability that can be developed. Focusing specifically on global virtual teams, Ang, Van Dyne, and Koh (2006) state that cultural intelligence is comprised of three components: a mental component, a motivational component, and a behavioral component. The mental component has to do with the ability to read cultural cues and use mental processes to gain knowledge of and to understand cultural differences; these differences may include cultural values, beliefs, norms, and behavioral conventions. Education, training, and personal experience all contribute to the acquisition of this knowledge. The motivational component has to do with an individual’s desire and commitment to adapt to multicultural environments. Finally, the behavioral component is a person’s ability to display appropriate verbal and nonverbal actions in intercultural communication encounters (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). Individuals with high cultural intelligence are likely to make effective leaders of global virtual teams because they have the ability to adapt to multicultural situations, to interpret the behavior of diverse team members with accuracy and empathy, and to serve as role models for team members (Chen, Liu, & Portnoy, 2012; Chua, Morris, & Mor, 2012). WRAPPING-UP PHASE At the completion of a project, leaders should take time to recognize the successes of the team and to reward individual accomplishments. They should also debrief the team about the project in order to gather useful feedback for future projects and to help team members analyze their learning and development during the course of the project. It is also valuable to create closure by reviewing the team’s processes and achievements (Zander et al., 2013). At this phase of the project, leaders can hold meetings to discuss how effective the team’s processes and routines of communication were in promoting the successful completion of the project. Leaders can require that each member of the team write an individual report reflecting on the effectiveness of the team’s performance and their own contributions to the project. While such information can also be presented verbally either in a meeting of the entire team or in individual

80

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

discussions with the leader, it will be beneficial both for team members and for the leader to have the information in writing. Wrap-up reports should include the team members’ reflections on: • • • • • • •

Their contributions to the team project How trust and relationships were established How tasks were coordinated The most valuable things learned from participating in the project What they will do differently in future projects based on this experience What motivated their commitment to the project Any problems or conflicts they encountered and how they addressed them

These reports can serve as preparation for a final team meeting where individual members will have an opportunity to analyze team performance and their own contributions. These reflections will be valuable for any virtual team but will prove especially useful for teams that will be working together on future projects. In student teams, faculty members can require that students write wrap-up reports and can even include peer evaluation as part of the report. Requiring students to discuss their own contributions to the project and those of their teammates is a valuable reflection exercise that will facilitate learning and enhance their future collaborations. In addition to analyzing the performance of the team, leaders should find a way to celebrate the accomplishments and successes of the team. At the completion of the project, the leader can create an online showcase to highlight the accomplishments of the team as a whole and of individual team members. Ideally, the showcase will be revealed during a final meeting where team members can socialize. This occasion gives everyone a chance to say goodbye and ends the collaboration on a positive note (Zofi, 2012). However, when singling out individual team members for awards, the leader needs to be careful to avoid undermining the cohesion of the group. To avoid any suggestion of favoritism by the leader, the team members themselves can vote on who should be recognized at an awards ceremony. In addition to the celebration, the team leader may wish to communicate with team members individually to discuss their experience in the team and to give them feedback on their performance. This evaluation of members’ performance may prove especially valuable for team leaders when they need to select employees for future collaborations since they will have a good sense of the capabilities of team members and their potential contributions to other projects. TYPES OF LEADERSHIP Two styles of leadership that have been studied extensively in the context of virtual teams are transactional leadership and transformational leadership. These two styles are polar opposites.

Addressing Management Challenges •

81

Transactional Leadership Transactional leadership focuses on controlling and motivating individuals through a system of rewards and punishments. In fact, the term “transactional” refers to the fact that this type of leadership is based on an exchange or “transaction” of rewards for performance. Transactional leaders strive to maintain the status quo and keep things running smoothly today. Such leaders monitor the work of employees very carefully to ensure that they meet specific expectations and carry out their tasks following strict guidelines. Transactional leaders set clear goals and specific objectives for employees. They give constructive feedback to workers and explicitly state the rewards they can expect for their efforts. In a study of 565 team members and team leaders in 101 research and development (R & D) teams from global manufacturing industries, Hoch and Kozlowski (2014) found that the influence of a traditional hierarchical leadership structure was weakened when teams were more virtual in nature. Typically, transactional leaders focus on offering rewards and encouragement to help employees meet existing goals, whereas transformational leaders have the ability to facilitate intrinsic motivation and engagement and to enhance the creativity of team members (Chang & Lee, 2013; Fan et al., 2014; Whitford & Moss, 2009). The transformational leadership style is often better suited to virtual work groups. Transformational Leadership Transformational leadership focuses on motivating employees through a vision that inspires them. Leaders using this style are charismatic, inspirational, intellectually stimulating, and individually considerate (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). Instead of influencing employees’ behavior through a system of rewards and punishments, transformational leaders inspire their followers through their creative vision of the future of the organization. They encourage employees to rise above personal concerns for the sake of a larger mission. Such leaders challenge the status quo of the organization with creative approaches to the work at hand. Through their intellectual stimulation, transformational leaders challenge employees to learn, to express their creativity, and to take greater ownership of their work. Such leaders are risk takers who serve as role models for employees. Through the strength of their personality and vision, such leaders improve the engagement and commitment of their followers. They mentor employees and connect with them at an emotional level (Mukherjee et al., 2012). Such leaders pay attention to the needs and concerns of employees both as individuals and as a group (Bono & Judge, 2004; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Transformational leaders are particularly effective in virtual environments because they have the ability to unify the goals of followers and challenge them to pursue shared objectives (Yukl, 1999). In a study of face-to-face and virtual team collaboration among undergraduate psychology students enrolled in an introductory course, Purvanova and Bono (2009) found that the most effective leaders

82

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

were those who increased their use of the transformational leadership style. They found that this leadership style was especially beneficial in a virtual setting and that it led to increased project satisfaction and team performance. Self-Managed Teams and Emergent Leaders Although most of the discussion in this chapter focuses on leaders who have been appointed either by the organization or by the team itself, there is also a growing body of research on emergent leaders in virtual teams and on self-managed teams. In some organizations, virtual teams have no appointed leaders, and team members are given full autonomy to determine how the work of the team will be managed. In such teams, task-related and managerial responsibilities are shared by all team members. Zigurs (2003) has suggested that leadership in virtual teams be viewed as a “total system and a development process” (p. 342). She argues that this view is useful because it recognizes the fact that team members can share and rotate leadership roles and that “leadership itself becomes a collective effort distributed within the team” (p. 342). Many organizations have had success with this approach to virtual work. Of course, in order for such teams to be effective and productive, the team members must possess the necessary knowledge and skills to handle all the tasks typically carried out by a team leader. Often when teams have no appointed leader, one or more individuals will exhibit leadership qualities and will “emerge” as the team’s leader. Emergent leaders are those individuals who rise to a position of leadership within a team solely on the basis of their actions instead of being appointed by an organization. Team members who emerge as leaders in virtual teams are perceived by their peers to be leaders on the basis of their actions; in some cases, they are actually selected by their teammates to fulfill the leadership role, while in other instances they fulfill the role without any official recognition by the team as a whole. Emergent leaders may occur in student teams as well; in fact, in some instances more than one leader may emerge within a student team (Flammia, Cleary, & Slattery, 2010). Team members who emerge as leaders possess certain qualities and exhibit certain behaviors that set them apart from their peers. Emergent team leaders share these characteristics: • • • •

They communicate frequently, particularly about task-related issues. They make significant contributions to team tasks. They inspire trust. They exhibit attractive personality traits and form friendly relationships with teammates. • They inspire and motivate their teammates. • They possess cultural intelligence, a global identity, and an openness to cultural diversity.

Addressing Management Challenges •

83

Typically, these individuals become leaders on the basis of the team’s perception of their ability to facilitate task and relationship interaction (Tyran, Tyran, & Shepherd, 2003) and because of their contributions to and influence on the team (Yoo & Alavi, 2004). Team members must have trust in a person before selecting her as a leader. Leaders may be selected on the basis of three types of trust: role performance trust, altruistic trust, and affective bond trust (McAllister, 1995): • Role performance trust is based on the person’s display of the skills and competencies necessary to fulfill the team’s goals. • Altruistic trust has to do with the team’s belief that the person will behave in an ethical manner and do what is right for the team regardless of selfinterest. • Affective bond trust is based on the person’s ability to form personal relationships with individual team members. Team members who are able to inspire these three types of trust in teammates are highly likely to emerge as team leaders. In a study of MBA students at a large U.S. university, Tyran et al. (2003) found that those students who emerged as leaders were perceived as being more trustworthy in terms of “their ability to perform tasks, their integrity, and their ability to form friendly relationships” (p. 191). Those team members who emerge as leaders are often distinguished by their superior communication skills. Team members who take on a leadership role communicate more frequently than other team members; they are also perceived by teammates to be good listeners, to be encouraging, and to be committed to the project (Sudweeks & Simoff, 2005; Walther, 2009). Yoo and Alavi (2004) conducted a study of senior executives in a U.S. federal government agency who participated in an executive development program at a university. They found that emergent leaders sent more email messages than their teammates, and particularly more task-oriented messages. The messages sent by the individuals who emerged as leaders were typically longer than those messages sent by other team members and often focused on logistical issues. The emergent leaders played three roles in the team: initiator, scheduler, and integrator. Emergent leaders possess personal qualities and capabilities that enhance both the task-related and social aspects of teamwork. In a study of student teams, Ziek and Smulowitz (2014) found that emergent leaders were skilled communicators who asked meaningful questions. Further, they had the ability to motivate their teammates and inspire them to work towards a common goal through their vision of the project. In a study of the personality traits exhibited by team members who emerge as leaders, Cogliser, Gardner, Gavin, and Broberg (2012) found that “agreeableness and conscientiousness were positively related to the task- and social-oriented dimensions of leader emergence, respectively” (p. 752).

84

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Emergent leaders face the same challenges as appointed leaders and need the same capabilities to be successful in addressing those challenges. Team members who are confident communicating with diverse others in a global setting and who have the ability to foster the development of trust and shared meaning within the team are likely to emerge as leaders. In a study of MBA students at ten universities in eight countries, Lisak and Erez (2015) found that those individuals who emerged as leaders had higher levels of three key global characteristics (cultural intelligence, global identity, and openness to cultural diversity) than did the other members of their teams. Based on their findings, Lisak and Erez argue that training programs in global organizations should focus on global characteristics that will enable individuals to adapt to work in a global context (See Chapter 6). SUMMARY Leadership of virtual teams presents many complex challenges, several of which are unique to virtual environments. To be effective in virtual teams, leaders must devote a significant amount of time to planning before a virtual collaboration begins. Further, at the outset of the project, leaders are charged with the task of putting in place many processes and standards to help provide structure for team members and to prevent duplication of effort and ambiguity about roles and responsibilities. In addition to creating a strong organization for the team, leaders must also provide opportunities for socialization and facilitate team-building activities that will help establish trust within the team. They should also establish communication guidelines and norms for information sharing. Once a project is underway, team leaders must monitor the performance of individual members and of the team as a whole. They should be alert for any signs of disharmony or conflict within the team and be prepared to act quickly and creatively to address these problems. Leaders should structure effective team meetings and strive to help members develop a team identity and a sense of oneness. In addition to all these responsibilities, leaders are called upon to serve as mentors and coaches for team members, to provide ongoing feedback, and to maintain the trusting relationships developed at the start of the project. During the wrap-up phase, leaders should recognize the accomplishments of individuals and of the team. They should also seek feedback from team members through meetings and formal reports to capture data that may be useful for future projects, particularly if the same team will work together again. Leaders should be aware of those qualities and leadership styles that have been found most effective for leading virtual teams; they may wish to adapt to a more transformational style when leading a virtual work group. Finally, leaders of global teams will also face challenges related to cultural differences and, ideally, will find ways to foster the development of cultural sensitivity within the team. The cultural challenges of virtual teamwork will be discussed in Chapter 6.

CHAPTER 6

ADDRESSING CULTURAL CHALLENGES

When working with some international partners, we sometimes consciously shift our communication style. For example, we may be more direct (bluntly honest) about something that did not go according to plan, or in other cases allow someone to save face by offering a more nuanced interpretation of the issue. —Program Lead at a research institute INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the many cultural challenges that are faced by members of virtual teams. These challenges have the potential to interfere with effective communication within teams, to prevent sharing of knowledge, and to create conflict among team members. The chapter begins with a definition of culture and a discussion of some well-known approaches to the study of intercultural communication. Although the primary focus of this chapter will be on challenges related to national cultures, it will also include a discussion of organizational culture and Virtual Teams in Higher Education: A Handbook for Students and Teachers, pages 85–117. Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing 85 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

86

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

disciplinary culture and how they interrelate with national culture to influence the interactions among members of virtual teams. NATIONAL CULTURE Culture is often defined as the shared values, beliefs, and standards of behavior of a particular group of people. While there are many definitions of culture, most of them agree on certain key aspects of culture. Culture is learned. Culture is expressed as behavior. Culture is dynamic and adaptive. People are not born already having certain cultural values or beliefs. Individuals learn the shared values and beliefs of their cultural group, just as they learn to speak a particular language. Growing up in a given culture, children accept the practices of that culture as normal and the correct way to behave in the world. They learn how to relate to their elders, how to behave in school, and whether or not certain behaviors are acceptable. Similarly, they learn how to interact both with other members of their own group and with individuals outside their own group. Although all human beings share certain common values, such as the desire to protect one’s family and to live in peace, there are many variations among cultures in their beliefs about how individuals in society should relate to one another and to individuals outside their cultural group. These beliefs encompass many aspects of daily life including the way members of a culture greet one another, the way parents and children interact, the relationship between teachers and students, the way elder members of society are treated, and the way rites of passage (e.g., coming of age, marriage, the birth of a child) are celebrated. These beliefs and standards also influence the way individuals work together in groups and how they relate to group leaders, how willing they are to share information with members of other cultures, and how they handle deadlines and other work-related obligations. Effective collaboration with diverse others requires a thorough understanding of culture; this understanding must encompass not only national culture, but also organizational and disciplinary culture as well. ORGANIZATIONAL OR CORPORATE CULTURE The phrase “corporate culture” is often used to describe the shared values, beliefs, and routine patterns of behavior of employees in an organization. The Encyclopedia of Business Terms states, “Corporate culture is rooted in an organization’s goals, strategies, structure, and approaches to labor, customers, investors, and the greater community. As such, it is an essential component in any business’s ultimate success or failure” (Corporate culture, n.d.). Employees in a corporation develop similarities in the way they cognitively process and evaluate information (Sims & Lorenzi, 1992). O’Neill, Beauvais, and Scholl (2001) state that these similarities “result in and from a pattern of basic assumptions and norms enhancing individual and organization stability, manifested in shared meanings, com-

Addressing Cultural Challenges •

87

municated by stories, myths and practices” (p. 135). Therefore, organizational culture, like national culture, has to do with the shared perceptions of a group of people and with behavioral patterns that are the result of these shared values and norms. However, scholars of intercultural communication challenge the notion that national culture and corporate culture are equally powerful forces influencing the behavior of employees. For example, Hofstede’s research “has shown that organizational cultures differ mainly at the level of practices (symbols, heroes and rituals); these are more superficial and more easily learned and unlearned than the values that form the core of national cultures” (The Hofstede Center, 2014, para. 1). He points out that national cultures are rooted in shared values and that corporate cultures are the result of employees’ shared perceptions of practices at the workplace. This distinction is important because national cultures are much more deeply rooted with emotions at their core, and corporate cultures are the result of observable practices that have little impact on the belief systems of employees (Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990). Yet despite this clear distinction between national and corporate cultures, an understanding of the culture of organizations, particularly multinational organizations, is relevant to the study of the cultural challenges faced by virtual teams. For instance, it is quite likely that in a multinational corporation the values and beliefs of the parent company’s national culture will have a significant influence on the values of the corporation’s management culture (Higgs & Morton, 2001). Additionally, the culture of an organization may influence the way managers deal with cultural differences (Adler, 1983) and the way global virtual teams are managed. In fact, a strong corporate culture may be instrumental in reducing conflict among team members (Symons & Stenzel, 2007). DISCIPLINARY OR FUNCTIONAL CULTURE Disciplinary culture can be defined as the shared beliefs and assumptions about the nature of knowledge held by practitioners, scholars, and teachers in various fields of study. Like members of national and corporate cultures, members of disciplinary cultures learn their cultures and express their belonging through various behaviors. These behaviors may include the way that they conduct research, the way they teach students, and, of course, the way they practice their profession. Often disciplinary cultures are bound by ethical guidelines, just as national cultures are, and members interact very differently with individuals outside their group than they do with those colleagues inside their own group. For example, an engineer will share information with another engineer using methods and language that individuals outside the discipline are not likely to understand. In writing about virtual teamwork, O’Hara-Devereaux and Johnasen (1994) noted that national and functional cultures are much stronger than corporate cultures. Certainly, the worldview shared by members of the same profession is likely to be more deeply ingrained than the patterns of behavior shared by employees

88

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

in the same organization, particularly in an age when few individuals remain with one employer for the long term. Even when employees’ behaviors conform to the routinized practices of their organization, their belief systems are unlikely to be affected by the culture of the corporation, particularly since the beliefs and values underlying the practices of the company are typically those of the founders or CEOs of the corporation and not the employees (Mintu, 1992). In global virtual teams, it is quite likely that individuals from different national cultures and various disciplinary backgrounds will find themselves interacting with one another. While a strong corporate culture may contribute to the creation of a cohesive and harmonious team, the key variable for the success of such a team is effective intercultural communication. APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION To put it very simply, intercultural communication is the sharing of information with members of different cultural groups. However, there is nothing really “simple” about communication across cultures. As noted previously, diverse cultures have different ideas about the appropriate way to communicate both with members of one’s own culture and with individuals outside one’s cultural group. Many of the differences among cultural groups regarding communication styles and methods can lead to communication failures that range from mild misunderstandings to full-fledged conflict. Therefore, before attempting to communicate with diverse others, it is useful to begin with at least a basic understanding of the challenges of intercultural communication. Many scholars have written about cultural differences and have offered frameworks for understanding diverse cultures; these frameworks are intended to develop individuals’ intercultural competence. Individuals can be said to have intercultural competence when they have the skills to communicate effectively and appropriately with members of other cultures. Intercultural competence requires that individuals have knowledge of other cultures and cultural sensitivity. They need to know how to work with diverse others and manage knowledge to create shared understandings. Interculturally competent individuals know how to adapt to different cultural settings and how to work with diverse others both in face-toface and virtual collaborations. While they respect cultural differences, they also seek common ground with colleagues from other cultures. The starting point for developing intercultural competence is to gain at least a basic understanding of other cultures and of cultural differences. To begin, it is useful to refer to the approaches to the study of culture developed by leading intercultural communication scholars Geert Hofstede, Edward T. Hall, and Milton J. Bennett.

Addressing Cultural Challenges •

89

Geert Hofstede Despite recent criticism of his approach (See Critiques of Hofstede’s Work), Geert Hofstede’s groundbreaking work with cultural dimensions remains the most frequently cited research on culture to date (Bond, 2002; The Hofstede Center, 2014). Hofstede is a Dutch social psychologist whose pioneering study of culture developed as a result of his work as founder and director of the personnel research department for IBM Europe. He created a survey to examine the influence of the cultural values of employees on their behavior in work situations. His initial survey encompassed 72 different countries, 38 occupations, and 20 languages. Hofstede revisited his work in the 1980s and again in 1991; since his original work, subsequent studies validating the earlier results have been conducted with diverse respondent groups including commercial airline pilots and students in 23 countries, civil service managers in 14 counties, “up-market” consumers in 15 countries, and “elites” in 19 countries (The Hofstede Center, 2014). The result of his work is the delineation of six cultural value dimensions. They are: the individualism/collectivism dimension, the power distance dimension, the uncertainty avoidance dimension, the masculinity/femininity dimension, the pragmatic/normative dimension, and the indulgence/restraint dimension. When studying these dimensions, we should keep in mind that Hofstede himself has stated, “Dimensions do not exist—but they can serve” (Hofstede & Hofstede, n.d., para. 2). He explains that the “dimensions of cultures do not exist in a tangible sense. They are constructs” (Hofstede & Hofstede, n.d., para. 2) He goes on to state that while a construct cannot be observed directly, it can be inferred from behaviors and verbal statements and can be useful in predicting other observable and measurable behaviors. Therefore, both the dimensions and culture itself are constructs. As Hofstede has argued, the six cultural value dimensions can serve; they can serve by offering insights into cultural differences that are likely to influence the way individuals behave in the workplace and how they will interact as members of virtual work groups. The first of the six cultural value dimensions, individualism/collectivism, has often been referred to as the core cultural value dimension because an understanding of this dimension can inform the study of all the other value dimensions. The Individualism/Collectivism Dimension This core cultural value dimension has to do with the individual’s relationship to society. In individualist societies, primary emphasis is placed on the rights and responsibilities of individual members of society. An individual’s needs are placed above those of the group. There is an emphasis on personal freedom, and there are many laws in place to protect the rights of the individual. People in individualist societies are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families. Self-reliance is an important value. Virtual team members from indi-

90

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

vidualist cultures may be more motivated by personal achievement and advancement than by a desire to make the team successful. Team leaders will need to find ways to recognize and reward individualist team members while at the same time requiring that they function as team players. In contrast, collectivist societies place the group’s needs above those of individuals. In collectivist societies, emphasis is placed on social cohesion, harmony, and duty to the larger group. The rights of the group come first in collectivist cultures. Individuals are expected to sacrifice their own desires in order to ensure group harmony. Loyalty to the group is paramount and, in turn, individuals can count on the group for support. Frequently, individuals are expected to care for members of their extended families. Virtual team members from collectivist societies are likely to be motivated by a desire for the success of the team as a whole and a desire to preserve team harmony. An orientation toward either the importance of the individual or the importance of the group influences many aspects of a culture, and an understanding of this core dimension will inform an understanding of the other value dimensions. The Power Distance Dimension The power distance dimension has to do with how members of a culture respond to an unequal distribution of power within society. In a high power distance culture, there is a clear distinction between individuals who have power and those who do not. This distinction may be seen in the workplace where employees have very formal relationships with their bosses and, in turn, the bosses are paternalistic toward their subordinates. The unequal distribution of power is also evident in schools and in the home. In schools, students respect their teachers and would never dare to question a teacher’s authority. In the family, young people are taught to respect and obey their elders. Individuals who hold positions of authority within society are revered and are typically addressed in a very formal manner. In a high power distance culture, employees would be unlikely to address their supervisor by her first name, and young people would be unlikely to question the decisions of their elders. There is a clear hierarchy within society, and individuals are rewarded based on seniority, status, age, and rank. Team members from high power distance societies will tend to be more formal in their interactions with the team leader and will defer to the leader’s decisions without question. In a low power distance culture, the relationships among individuals tend to be much less formal, and everyone is perceived as equal to everyone else. Employees feel free to address their boss by his first name and to contribute their own opinions and ideas even when speaking with someone who is their superior in the corporate hierarchy. Similarly, students are encouraged to express themselves and even to challenge the ideas presented by their teachers. Within the family, children are taught to speak their minds and to develop their creativity. Often, families will have a democratic decision-making process with each member of the family being accorded an equal vote regardless of age or position within the family.

Addressing Cultural Challenges •

91

Low power distance cultures emphasize the importance of equality, freedom, and creative self-expression. Rewards are typically based on achievement and merit rather than status. Team members from low power distance countries will be more informal in their relationship with the team leader and will expect the team to function democratically. The Uncertainty Avoidance Dimension The uncertainty avoidance dimension has to do with how comfortable members of a culture are with the unknown and how resistant they are to situations that require them to deal with uncertainty. In a strong uncertainty avoidance culture, individuals feel threatened by uncertainty and ambiguity and try to avoid uncertain situations as much as possible. Typically, strong uncertainty avoidance cultures have strict laws, rules, and codes of behavior to attempt to prevent ambiguous and unstructured situations as much as possible. Work, school, and family situations are all governed by clearly defined guidelines for behavior. Students expect their teachers to have all the answers and prefer formal learning situations. Often such cultures discourage innovation and have little tolerance for unconventional ideas. Individuals from strong uncertainty avoidance cultures may find it more difficult to become part of a global virtual team with diverse others; they may need encouragement and support from the team leader to help them build relationships with their teammates. They will be more comfortable once the team has established clear-cut procedures for tasks and specific routines of communication. In weak uncertainty avoidance cultures, people have a high degree of tolerance for ambiguity and tend to embrace unknown situations. These cultures tend to have fewer laws and rules in place to regulate and control the behavior of individuals. Interactions among members of weak uncertainty avoidance cultures are likely to be less formal and structured. Innovation and risk taking are encouraged within society, and ambiguity and the unknown are considered to be normal parts of life. Teachers are not expected to have all the answers, and learning situations are more open-ended. Citizens are free to protest political actions with which they disagree. In the workplace, conflict is tolerated, and employees are encouraged to innovate and engage in creative behavior. Team members from weak uncertainty avoidance cultures will find it easier to engage in virtual work with teammates from other cultures. They will be more willing to take chances in establishing initial communication and “breaking the ice” with teammates. The Masculinity/Femininity Dimension Masculine cultures are those cultures that value assertiveness, competition, and monetary success. In these cultures, gender roles are rigidly defined in a stereotypical manner. Men are expected to be tough and to be the providers for their families. Women are expected to fulfill more nurturing roles and to be modest and concerned with the quality of life. As a whole, the society is focused on “living to work,” and economic growth is a major priority.

92

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

In feminine cultures, gender roles are not rigidly defined, and both men and women may be nurturing and concerned about the quality of life. Feminine cultures value cooperation, protection of the less fortunate in society, and conflict resolution through negotiation. Individuals in feminine cultures are committed to protecting the environment. They value leisure time and the quality of personal relationships. Organizational cultures within masculine societies foster a climate in which employees focus on personal achievement and advancement within the corporate structure. For the most part, employees are motivated by the desire to earn a high salary. By contrast, organizations within feminine societies have a culture in which employees are concerned about the quality of work relationships and respect from superiors and peers within the company. They are motivated by the desire for job security and the quality of their workplace experience. The Pragmatic/Normative Dimension The pragmatic/normative dimension was not the result of Hofstede’s original research but was added to explain significant differences that he noted between East Asian cultures and the other cultures that he studied. In subsequent research, he noted the influence of Confucian philosophy on cultures in the East, specifically China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. Confucius was a Chinese philosopher, educator, and politician who lived 551 to 479 BC. He was the founder of the Ru School of Chinese thought. His teachings form the foundation of Chinese beliefs regarding the way the ideal man should behave and how he should interact with other members of society. The pragmatic/normative dimension was previously called the Confucian dynamism dimension because of the influence of Confucius’s teaching on Chinese values, beliefs, and traditions. His code of conduct stresses the importance of duty to one’s family and a hierarchical societal structure. This value dimension is based on a long-term orientation, that is, on planning far into the future and making sacrifices today in order to reap future rewards. To achieve long-term goals, individuals and organizations must practice perseverance and thrift. Confucian teachings also emphasize the importance of having a sense of shame, fulfilling social obligations, and striving to ensure collective facesaving. The concept of face is very important in many Asian cultures; in order to save face, individuals must act to prevent public embarrassment or disgrace either of themselves or of their social group. In collectivist societies, like China, it is the responsibility of every member of the group to prevent loss of face for individuals in the group or the group itself. The pragmatic/normative dimension encompasses both collectivism and a high power distance orientation. Societies that follow the teachings of Confucius are collectivist societies in which there are strong bonds of obligation between members of society. They also are likely to be high power distance cultures whose members adhere to strict social codes and who revere both their elders and their

Addressing Cultural Challenges •

93

ancestors. Relationships in society are status-oriented, and the behavior of individuals is regulated by their loyalty to the group and their deference to those individuals above them in the social hierarchy. The Indulgence/Restraint Dimension The indulgence/restraint dimension is a more recent addition to Hofstede’s value dimensions that was first presented in the book Culture’s Consequences in 2001. It is based on surveys done by Hofstede and Minkov using questions from the World Values Survey and drawing on “happiness research” (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010; Minkov & Hofstede, 2010; World Values Survey, n.d.). Indulgence cultures are those cultures that allow individuals to freely gratify basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life. Restraint cultures are those cultures that have strict social norms that regulate behavior and control or suppress the gratification of human desires. In indulgence cultures, individuals have a perception of personal control over their lives, and freedom of speech is considered important. In these cultures, people place a high value on leisure activities, and more people are likely to participate in sports. In wealthy countries, there are more lenient norms regarding sexual behavior. In general, freedom is considered more important than maintaining social order (The Hofstede Center, 2014). In restraint cultures, people may feel that they do not have control over their own lives and that what happens to them is not their own doing. Freedom of speech and leisure are not major priorities in the society, and there is a larger number of police officers relative to the number of citizens. In general, people do not feel free to act upon many of their desires because of strong social prohibitions. Application of Hofstede’s Value Dimensions at the Organizational Level Hofstede has also conducted research at the organizational level to study corporate culture. In the 1980s, Hofstede and a team of collaborators conducted a research project similar to his original work with IBM employees. This research was conducted in the Netherlands and Denmark with twenty companies in diverse industries ranging from toy manufacturers to municipal police corps (Hofstede et al., 1990). Although the small number of companies surveyed in only two nations is “far too limited to claim any universality for the model” (p. 313), the findings may prove illuminating when examining key differences in organizational cultures. Hofstede et al. (1990) originally identified six independent dimensions of organizational cultures. They also identified two semi-autonomous dimensions: degree of acceptance of leadership style and degree of identification with your organization.

94

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

The Six Independent Dimensions The six independent dimensions are means-oriented versus goal-oriented; internally driven versus externally driven; easygoing work discipline versus strict work discipline; local versus professional; open system versus closed system; and employee-oriented versus work-oriented. Means-Oriented Versus Goal-Oriented Of all the dimensions, the means-oriented versus goal-oriented dimension is the most closely related to a corporation’s effectiveness. In means-oriented cultures the emphasis is on how work is carried out. Employees identify with the process by which work is done. In contrast, in goal-oriented cultures, the focus is on achieving specific goals or results; employees are concerned about the what, as in what goals must be achieved. They will strive to get results and will be willing to take substantial risks to be successful. Taken to an extreme, a means-oriented culture will cause employees “to perceive themselves as avoiding risks” (http://geert-hofstede.com/organisationalculture.html, para. 4) and making only a minimal effort in their work. By contrast, in an extremely goal-oriented culture, employees will do whatever it takes to achieve results, even when their actions involve significant risks. Internally Driven Versus Externally Driven Internally driven cultures instill in employees the belief that business ethics and honesty matter more than any other consideration. Employees have the feeling that “they know best what is good for the customer and the world at large” (The Hofstede Center, 2014, para. 5). Externally driven cultures, on the other hand, emphasize results more than ethics. Employees are focused on meeting a customer’s needs and tend to take a pragmatic attitude toward getting things done. Hofstede points out that this dimension differs from the means-orientation versus goal-orientation because the focus is not on results generally, but rather specifically on satisfying a client or customer. Easygoing Work Discipline Versus Strict Work Discipline An easygoing work discipline exercises little control over employees. The internal structure of the company is loose, and there is not much discipline. Employees may feel free to improvise rather than follow codes or procedures. The workplace may be very unpredictable. In contrast, a strict work discipline requires employees to be very restrained, serious, and cost-conscious. There is an emphasis on punctuality and adherence to structured codes of behavior. Local Versus Professional In companies with a local culture, the employees identify with the corporation and the division in which they work; in a professional culture, the employees identify with their own profession and particular area of expertise rather than with the company for which they are currently working. In local cultures, employees are more likely to be focused on the short-term future and to strive to conform to the social norms of the corporation, while in professional cultures, employees are

Addressing Cultural Challenges •

95

much more externally focused and are usually not concerned about fitting in and being like everyone else in the company. Open System Versus Closed System An organization with an open system welcomes new members and makes them feel at home. In such an organization there is open internal communication and open external communication. Outsiders are readily admitted, and it is believed that nearly anyone would fit into the organization. In contrast, closed systems do not welcome new members and frequently have limited communication with individuals outside the organization. Hofstede et al. (1990) found that organizations in Denmark exhibited much more openness than those in the Netherlands; a societal openness is more typical of the Danish culture than of the Dutch culture. This finding is significant because it demonstrates that organizational cultures may also contain characteristics of national cultures. Employee-Oriented Versus Work-Oriented In employee-oriented cultures, corporations assume responsibility for the wellbeing of employees beyond the strict confines of their job performance. Employees’ personal problems are taken into account by management, and the welfare of employees is placed above the work that must be performed. Work-oriented cultures, on the other hand, focus on the importance of getting work done even when it is at the expense of the employees. Management only takes responsibility for the employees’ job performance and is not concerned with the staff members’ well-being or their personal lives outside of the workplace. This dimension is related to a corporation’s management philosophy. Such a philosophy may be the legacy of the corporation’s founder(s) or may result from recent economic conditions within an industry, region, or nation. The Two Semi-Autonomous Dimensions The two semi-autonomous dimensions are degree of acceptance of leadership style and degree of identification with your organization. Degree of Acceptance of Leadership Style This dimension reflects the degree to which an employee responds positively to the leadership style of his direct boss. However, since individuals may have different bosses for different projects, this dimension does not play a role at the level of culture. Degree of Identification with Your Organization This dimension reflects the degree to which respondents to Hofstede’s survey identified with the “totality” of their organization. Because employees may simultaneously identify with different aspects of a corporation, it is possible that an employee may identify strongly with the organization’s internal goals, with her direct boss, with the client(s), with her own division or work group within the company,

96

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

and with the company as a whole. However, it is also possible that employees may not feel a strong connection with any aspect of the corporation. Critiques of Hofstede’s Work Hofstede’s work and the validity of his cultural value dimensions for the study of culture have been called into question by many scholars. For example, researchers have pointed out that reducing the study of culture to “abstract cultural generalizations—even if derived from large-group research” (Symons & Stenzel, 2007, p. 7) may lead to stereotyping and the application of these generalizations to individuals. Another point of criticism is the fact that the cultural dimensions describe cultural differences, but do not explain them (Symons & Stenzel, 2007). Some researchers question the methodology that Hofstede used as well as the conclusions that he drew from his findings; for example, McSweeney (2002) points out that Hofstede has assumed “national uniformity” of culture based on “micro-local” sites of analysis (p. 102). He also calls into question the fact that all of Hofstede’s original data were collected with employees of IBM in various nations, suggesting that the survey responses of employees of one multinational corporation are hardly likely to be representative on an entire national culture. Of course, Hofstede and other scholars have responded to these criticisms. Hofstede has made it clear that he does not intend for the cultural value dimensions to be applied at the individual level, saying, “Dimensions of national culture are about societies; dimensions of organizational culture about organizational units. Neither is about individual differences between members of society or organizations” (Hofstede & Hofstede, n.d., para. 7). Since the publication of Hofstede’s original work, numerous studies have been done by other researchers validating his earlier results (See Approaches to the Study of Intercultural Communication). Finally, while it is true that the dimensions describe culture rather than explain it, if used with that shortcoming in mind, the cultural dimensions model is still a valuable tool for developing an understanding of cultural differences. Symons and Stenzel (2007) point out a key consideration for researchers, teachers, or students who wish to use Hofstede’s work to inform their study of culture: “[A]ll existing models [of culture] have advantages and disadvantages…their usefulness depends heavily on the context in which they are applied” (p. 9). Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that the cultural value dimensions are a useful framework for understanding differences among cultures that impact communication and collaboration in the workplace, but they are no substitute for getting to know colleagues and appreciating them for their uniqueness as individuals. Edward T. Hall’s Theory of Contexting Another scholar whose work has been highly influential in the study of intercultural communication is anthropologist Edward T. Hall. In fact, through his work with the Foreign Service Institute, Hall (1981) was instrumental in the de-

Addressing Cultural Challenges •

97

velopment of the field of intercultural communication as it exists today (Sadri & Flammia, 2011). Hall is best known for his theory of contexting, which is the concept that in some cultures meaning in any communication is derived primarily from the surrounding context of the communication encounter, while in other cultures meaning is derived from the explicitly stated verbal and nonverbal content of the message. High-context cultures are those cultures in which much of the meaning in any communication encounter is implicit in the surrounding environment, social context, and relationship between the individuals who are communicating. Individuals in high-context cultures frequently rely on a shared understanding based on their cultural norms to determine the meaning of a message. High-context cultures are more likely to be cultures whose population is relatively homogenous, like Japan. An example of high-context communication might be the communication between two individuals who have worked together in the same company for many years and who also have become close friends outside of work. Because of their shared corporate culture, personal relationship, and ongoing collaboration, these individuals may be able to communicate with few explicit statements. By contrast, in low-context cultures, meaning is stated precisely and individuals rely on verbal and nonverbal cues to express their meaning. The message being communicated is totally dependent on the specific words or gestures used; no information resides in the surrounding context. An example of low-context communication might be the exchange between two individuals (one an engineer and one a technical communicator) from different cultures who have just begun to work together in a virtual team. In this situation, the team members have no prior relationship and do not share a national, organizational, or disciplinary culture. Further, they must rely on technology to communicate with one another. They will need to craft very explicit and carefully worded messages in order to begin to develop an understanding of one another. Hall’s theory of contexting focuses on the relationship between information, meaning, and context in any communication encounter. Both information and context are needed in order for a communication to have meaning. However, the more context there is surrounding a communication encounter, the less explicitly stated information is needed to convey meaning. Hall goes on to state that culture determines what we pay attention to and what we ignore in any communication encounter. In other words, our culture shapes our beliefs about the way the world is and the way that people should interact with one another. Based on these largely unconscious beliefs, we choose to pay attention to some cues from our environment while ignoring others. In high-context cultures, relationships are very important, and family ties tend to be quite strong. Individuals in these cultures are likely to make sharp distinctions between members of the culture and “outsiders.” Communication in high-context cultures is more ambiguous and indirect than it is in low-context cultures. Most of the information is internalized based on shared understandings about society and

98

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

appropriate methods of interaction with others. Many high-context cultures are collectivist cultures. Given these characteristics of high-context communication, it is not difficult to imagine that an individual from a collectivist high-context culture might find it challenging to work in a culturally diverse virtual team with colleagues who have very different approaches to exchanging information. In low-context cultures, the bonds between individuals are typically not as strong. These cultures are more likely to be individualist and to emphasize autonomy rather than group cohesion. It seems logical that individuals in such cultures would need to rely on explicitly crafted messages in order to communicate since they probably do not share an identical view of the world that can inform their interactions with one another. Instead, they rely on clear, precise, detailed messages that spell out their meaning completely. Therefore, when working with team members whose communication is much less direct and explicit, individuals from low-context cultures may fail to understand the intended message, and in some cases, may become frustrated with what they perceive as an inability to communicate clearly. Hall’s work, like the theories of Hofstede, has been widely cited across a range of disciplines and has helped to inform not just our understanding of intercultural communication, but the development of the field itself. In fact, Hall’s theory of contexting “is the most cited theoretical framework in articles about intercultural communication in business and technical communication journals and in intercultural communication textbooks” (Cardon, 2008, p. 399). However, some scholars have criticized Hall’s work because it is based on his observations rather than on empirical studies. As Cardon points out, it is important to be aware of the limitations of this cultural model since it has not been validated empirically. However, the model may prove useful in at least raising an awareness of the types of differences that may exist in communication styles across cultures, differences that can inform one’s understanding of the challenges of effective intercultural communication. Milton J. Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) Intercultural communication scholar Milton J. Bennett has developed a cultural model, the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), that does not focus on the differences among cultures, but rather on the process by which an individual develops recognition and acceptance of cultural differences. Bennett (2004) describes the process as one of moving from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. Ethnocentrism is the belief that one’s own culture is at the center of reality. Individuals grow up in a culture and take for granted that the values, beliefs, and traditions of their culture represent the way the world is. They believe that the ways of behaving they learn in their own culture are the ways that all people should behave. Ethnorelativism, on the other hand, is just the opposite; it is the perception that one’s own culture is just one among many cultures, and

Addressing Cultural Challenges •

99

the way things are done in one’s culture is just one way among many possible approaches to reality. Bennett (2013) has developed a continuum that spans from ethnocentrism at one end to ethnorelativism at the other with distinct stages in between them. The most ethnocentric approach to cultural differences is to deny their existence; therefore, denial is the first stage followed by defense against cultural differences. The minimization of cultural differences is located in the middle of the continuum; once in the minimization stage, an individual can make the transition from extreme ethnocentrism to a more moderate viewpoint that can in turn lead to acceptance of cultural differences. When individuals have moved into ethnorelativism, they will adapt to cultural differences; Bennett states that adaption is “at the heart of ethnorelativism” (2004, p. 62). He goes on to say that, ideally, from adaptation an individual will then integrate cultural differences into his identity. In order to reach the adaptation stage in the DMIS (See Figure 6.1), it is necessary for individuals to have contact with other cultures; often people have an ethnocentric perspective because they have been socialized within one culture and have not had any alternative cultural experiences. The only way they know how to perceive the world is through the lens of their own culture. Bennett states that the DMIS is based on the supposition that “contact with cultural difference generates pressure for change in one’s worldview” (2004, p. 74). It should be noted that the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity is not a measure of a person’s knowledge of another culture, so it is possible for someone to possess knowledge of differences among cultures without developing sensitivity to those cultures. The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity is a useful tool for understanding both one’s own and one’s teammates’ approaches to communication across cultures. For example, the behavior of teammates who have not had alter-

FIGURE 6.1.

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity

100

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

nate cultural experiences before the current global virtual team project may be put into a context that makes their “denial” of cultural differences more explicable and less off-putting. Similarly, the model helps individuals understand their own feelings regarding diverse teammates and their different approaches to communication and work. The DMIS will be discussed again later in this chapter in the section on Preparation for Virtual Work across Cultures. Social Identity, Stereotyping, and Trust in Communication across Cultures When communicating with diverse others, it is useful to have an understanding of the role of culture in the formation of social identities. Based on the groups with which they identify, individuals may stereotype people who are different from them, and such stereotyping may interfere with the formation of trusting relationships. Social Identity Theory and Culture British social psychologist Henri Tajfel (1974) developed social identity theory, which proposes that membership in social groups forms much of the basis of an individual’s identity and self-esteem (See Chapter 3, Social Identity Theory). One aspect of this theory that is particularly important to the study of intercultural communication is the concept of in-groups and out-groups. In-groups are those groups with which people identify and to which they feel a psychological connection. Groups may be based on national culture, religion, ethnicity, gender, political affiliation, family, or any number of other distinctions. Tajfel’s research revealed that individuals can form in-groups very quickly, in a matter of minutes in some cases, and that such groups can be based on relatively trivial distinctions. Out-groups are those groups of individuals with whom one has no identification or sense of psychological connection. In some cases, out-groups may be viewed in a benign manner, but in other instances members of out-groups may be compared unfavorably to in-group members in order to raise the prestige of one’s own group and to increase the self-esteem of its members. A perception that members of the in-group are superior can be used to justify giving them preferential treatment and to discriminating against those outside the group. Social psychologist Harry Triandis (1989) has argued that the in-group/out-group distinction “determines social behavior more strongly in collectivist than in individualist cultures” (p. 517). According to Triandis, members of collectivist cultures perceive greater distinctions between members of their in-group and outsiders and, as a result, they will communicate differently with members of the out-group; they will be reluctant to engage in self-disclosure with outsiders. The difficulty that members of collectivist cultures may have in initial communication encounters with individuals who are not members of their in-groups should be kept in mind by their teammates in virtual work groups.

Addressing Cultural Challenges •

101

Stereotyping It is not uncommon for individuals to stereotype people who are not members of their in-group. Stereotyping is the process of assuming that all individuals or groups who share a particular characteristic are the same. For example, all members of that culture are thrifty or all members of that culture are not punctual. Often, stereotypes attribute negative qualities to individuals or groups. However, even the attribution of a positive trait if done in a stereotypical manner can be reductive and discriminatory. One great danger of studying other cultures is that one may be tempted to use a small amount of knowledge about another culture to form a simplistic and narrow understanding that does not reflect the complex and dynamic nature of that culture. Students of intercultural communication face a dilemma with regard to gathering isolated pieces of information about other cultures. It is beneficial to understand cultural differences. For example, when meeting colleagues from abroad it is helpful to know the proper way of greeting them and to understand communication differences in order to prevent miscommunication. However, simply knowing some basic facts about cultural differences is not sufficient to provide a true understanding of another culture. Often members of in-groups will stereotype outsiders. They will attribute positive characteristics to the in-group and will view members of the in-group as individuals while applying reductive and negative attributes to members of the out-group. Similarly, individuals who are at the defense stage of Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity may stereotype members of other cultures in a reductive manner because they feel threatened by cultural differences. They will cling to the notion that their own culture is more civilized than and, therefore, superior to other cultures. It is natural for people to feel anxiety when dealing with culturally diverse others or with anyone who is not a member of their in-group. These feelings may stem from fear of the unknown, from doubt about one’s ability to communicate effectively, and from concern that one may appear prejudiced. One reaction to these feelings may be attempts to anticipate the behavior of diverse others; the desire to feel that the behavior of others is predictable may also lead to relying heavily on cultural identity as a predictor of behavior rather than viewing the diverse other as an individual (Gudykunst, 1997). Cultural Challenges Related to Trust The development of trusting relationships is essential to the success of virtual teams (See Chapter 3, Challenges in Developing and Maintaining Trust). In fact, trust is one of the most widely researched aspects of virtual work. Early work on trust in virtual teams focused on the notion of the formation of swift trust (Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996). Swift trust develops in temporary unconventional work groups like film crews, presidential commissions, and cockpit crews. Typically, swift trust develops in situations where group members with recognized ex-

102

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

pertise come together to work on a complex and demanding project under severe time constraints. However, in most virtual teams, trust develops over time, and cultural differences may play a role in how trust develops or fails to develop within a team. Virtual distance is defined as the psychological or emotional distance between team members (Reilly & Ryan, 2007). When team members feel a sense of separation and distance, they will typically be less trusting of one another. Culture is one of several factors that determine virtual distance; the other factors include organizational differences, the degree of task interdependence, and prior relationships (Reilly & Ryan, 2007). In order for team members from diverse cultures to develop trust, they must develop personal relationships that allow them to understand their teammates and to adapt to cultural differences (Gaertner & Dovido, 2000). Personal relationships can be fostered by self-disclosure. It is not necessary for team members to become close friends, but it is important that they are able to recognize and appreciate the expertise and value that their colleagues from other cultures contribute to the team. Similar to the concept of virtual distance, separation diversity is divisions among team members caused by perceptions that they are different from one another (Chiu & Staples, 2013). Such perceptions can lead to the development of faultlines in a team. Faultlines are hypothetical divisions within groups that cause the creation of subgroups based on identification with teammates who share a particular characteristic such as a similar cultural or professional background or a particular demographic variable. The development of subgroups created by faultlines within a team has been found to correlate with increased conflict and decreased team performance (Bezrukova, Jehn, Zanutto, & Thatcher, 2009; Li & Hambrick, 2005). Self-disclosure can help to reduce intergroup conflict and divisiveness and foster the development of trust among all team members. When team members share information and reveal aspects of their personal lives to one another, they are likely to feel less distance and, as a result, to develop group cohesion (Chiu & Staples, 2013). In some virtual teams, blogs have been used effectively to facilitate self-disclosure and to prevent or ameliorate the development of faultlines. COMMUNICATION CHALLENGES Often, the development of trust is impeded by the fact that members of virtual teams have different communication styles. While Chapter 3 covers general communication challenges, this chapter focuses specifically on those challenges related to intercultural communication. Differences in communication styles across cultures may prevent effective communication; miscommunication may lead to team members becoming frustrated or even offended. In the worst-case scenario, such misunderstandings will escalate into conflict within the team.

Addressing Cultural Challenges •

103

An understanding of the different communication styles across cultures can help avoid ineffective communication that can slow or prevent the development of trust among team members. Differences in verbal communication styles as well as lack of nonverbal cues may lead to communication challenges in virtual teams. Challenges Related to Verbal Communication Styles Verbal communication refers to the way people typically use language in their normal speech. There are four different types of communication styles: direct/indirect, elaborate/exact/succinct, personal/contextual, and instrumental/affective. Direct/Indirect Communication Styles Speakers using the direct communication style will state the points that they wish to make exactly and in no uncertain terms. For example, a team member who is frustrated by a colleague’s failure to be on time for meetings may say, “Your failure to show up on time is unfair to the rest of the team. You had better be on time for the next meeting.” The speaker will state her mind very openly and with no hesitation. The direct communication style is used by members of low-context cultures where emphasis is placed on crafting very explicit and unambiguous messages. This style of communication is favored by most U.S. business people and by many Europeans as well. Individuals who use the direct communication style perceive it as efficient and practical. They believe that it will save time and money. Cultures that value this style of communication expect people to assert themselves and stand up for their rights. These cultures focus on the importance of individuals being straightforward with one another and asking for what they want. The indirect communication style is used by members of high-context cultures. Speakers in these cultures will avoid openly stating what they want and will hesitate to assert themselves as individuals. They will be more concerned with maintaining the harmony of the group than with asserting their individual needs. A team member using the indirect style would be more ambiguous in expressing concerns over a teammate’s lack of punctuality. He might say, “I noticed that you were not at the start of the last meeting. Would you like me to fill you in on what we discussed?” To a team member used to the direct style, this comment would not make clear his colleague’s dissatisfaction with his lateness. In a study of cultural diversity in global virtual teams, Shachaf (2008) found that individuals from more direct cultures became quite frustrated when communicating with Asian teammates who used an indirect communication style. Individuals who use the indirect style perceive it as more polite and respectful. Openly stating a criticism of a teammate who is habitually late would risk causing the teammate a loss of face. Causing a loss of face to oneself, one’s colleagues, or one’s team is something that the speaker would want to avoid at all costs. Most speakers who use the indirect style are members of collectivist cultures where group harmony is prized above individual rights and self-expression.

104

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Elaborate/Exact/Succinct Communication Styles These three communication styles can be seen as a continuum with elaborate communicators at one end and with succinct communicators at the other. The exact style falls somewhere in between the other two. The elaborate communication style favors the use of flowery language, quotations from literary works, scripture, and fables, and exaggerated and emphatic statements. Individuals using this style have very descriptive and elegant speech. The elaborate style is favored by Arabic cultures. The succinct style is at the opposite end of the spectrum from the elaborate style; speakers using the succinct style will use as few words as possible. They value understatement and silence. They would be likely to distrust those individuals who make exaggerated and highly descriptive statements. This communication style is used by the Amish. Speakers using the exact style want to use as many words as necessary to convey their meaning, but rarely use more words than are needed. They do not use exaggeration in their speech and are not overly emphatic in their statements. Communicators who use this style are likely to view individuals who make excessive and exaggerated claims in their speech with suspicion. They view the exact style as indicative of sincerity and cooperation. The exact communication style is used by most Americans. If these differences in communication styles are not understood by members of virtual teams, they may lead to distrust of team members and frustration with colleagues who are perceived as speaking either too much or not enough. In a virtual collaboration between professionals in Denmark and India, the Danish team members became frustrated and angry with their Indian colleagues for sending long emails that included every possible piece of information available; at the same time, the Indian colleagues complained that the Danish team members did not provide them with enough information to do their jobs (Klitmøller & Lauring, 2013). Although there were many other factors that presented challenges for collaboration among individuals from these two dissimilar cultures, one factor that caused significant challenges within the team was differing perceptions regarding the amount of information necessary to achieve effective communication. Instrumental/Affective Communication Styles The instrumental communication style is goal oriented. In this style, it is the speaker’s responsibility to make his message clear. The speaker is expected to craft an unambiguous message that it is easy for the listener to understand. Often the speaker strives to persuade the listener and to evoke a particular response from him. A team member using this style to communicate with a colleague would be very precise and specific; for example, she might offer a list of specific tasks that her colleague was expected to perform for the team. By contrast, the affective communication style places the responsibility for successful communication on the listener. The person receiving a message is expected to anticipate the speaker’s meaning even before a message is conveyed.

Addressing Cultural Challenges •

105

Often the affective communication style is used by individuals who also use the indirect communication style. These two styles are used by individuals in highcontext cultures. A virtual team member using this communication style may fail to give a teammate a specific list of the tasks he was expected to perform. She might expect that the team member would be able to infer his duties from the situation or surrounding context of the communication. Such a style might be effective with a teammate from a high-context culture but could very well lead to miscommunication when sending a message to a colleague who is used to communicating in a more direct and instrumental manner. For example, U.S. team members may find the affective communication style of their Japanese teammates to be frustrating because their Japanese colleagues do not include specific directions as to what they should do. Personal/Contextual Communication Styles In the personal communication style, the speaker places emphasis on himself; an individual using the personal style uses the pronoun “I.” Members of individualist cultures in which the emphasis is placed on the rights of the individual use this style of communication. Speakers using the contextual style place emphasis on their relationship with the listener; they use the pronoun “we.” It is not surprising that this style is used by members of collectivist cultures where the group is considered more important than individuals. In these cultures, group harmony is valued more than individual self-expression. Linguistic studies have found that in collectivist cultures the pronouns “I” and “you” are often dropped from speech (Kashima & Kashima, 1998). For example, in one study of virtual teams, German and Japanese team members who used a contextual style were not comfortable with the personal style used by U.S. teammates; they also became frustrated when communicating in English (the common language of their team) because they were unable to maintain the formal social distinctions that are present in their own languages (Shachaf, 2008). Distinctions between these two styles of communication may have implications for group harmony within virtual teams. An emphasis on “we-ness” may help foster a positive collaborative atmosphere within a virtual team and enhance the cohesion of the group. At the same time, it is important that each team member is aware of her individual role and takes responsibility for specific contributions to the team. Challenges Related to Nonverbal Communication While differences in verbal communication styles may cause miscommunication among members of virtual teams, it is usually the lack of nonverbal communication rather than differences in nonverbal communication styles that may interfere with effective communication. Since members of virtual teams must rely on computer-mediated communication, they rarely have access to nonverbal cues when communicating with colleagues from other cultures. Communication schol-

106

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

ars Burgoon, Buller, and Woodall (1996) have estimated that between 60 and 65 percent of all the information we receive in any communication encounter is received from nonverbal cues; these cues may include tone of voice, eye contact, body movements, and gestures. Without this additional information to amplify and complete the meaning of a given message, individuals may fail to understand one another and, in some instances, communication may break down altogether (See Chapter 3, Nonverbal Communication). The lack of nonverbal information is challenging for all communicators, but it becomes especially challenging when communicating across cultures. Of course, virtual teams have a number of communication technologies available to them; these technologies include both rich and lean media (See Chapter 3, Media Richness). Although many researchers have argued that initial face-to-face meetings are vital to the success of virtual teams because they make it possible for team members to develop personal relationships and to communicate without the interference of technology (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000; Rutkowski, Van Genuchten, Bemelmans & Favier, 2002; Suchan & Hayzak, 2001), many scholars have also pointed out the benefits of relying on lean media at the start of global team projects. They argue that lean media are beneficial precisely because they minimize cultural differences within a team (Spears, Lea, & Postmes, 2001). When communicating via rich media, team members are likely to be much more aware of differences and as a result may stereotype their teammates. Such stereotyping could lead to the creation of boundaries or faultlines within the team. Therefore, in global teams with members from many different cultures, lean media can actually reduce potential conflict and fragmentation within the team (Stahl, Maznevski, Voight, & Jonsen, 2010). For this reason, a team leader may choose to use lean media in the initial stages of a collaboration while at the same time fostering the development of trusting relationships among team members based on an understanding of one another’s skills and expertise. Trust develops as a result of early task-related and social communication; it also develops as a result of team members having an awareness and appreciation of the knowledge and skills that their teammates bring to their mutual endeavor. If such relationships can be established without focusing on cultural differences, it is much less likely that such differences will derail the project because of divisiveness, conflict, and unwillingness to share information with one another (See Chapter 5). There are other reasons that lean media may be beneficial to members of culturally diverse teams. Although English is frequently the common language for members of virtual teams, particularly in multinational corporations, many team members may speak English as a second or even third language. For this reason, there may be noticeable variations in spoken English among team members; both accents and a lower level of language proficiency will be much more noticeable when the team uses rich media like a videoconference. These variations can decrease the effectiveness of communication and increase the awareness of cultural

Addressing Cultural Challenges •

107

differences. By contrast, when communicating via email, those team members for whom English is a second language can take time to craft a carefully worded and thoroughly edited message. At the same time, their English-speaking teammates will not have to struggle to understand their meaning and will not become frustrated by a speaker who may have a noticeable accent. When team members have varying proficiencies in the common language that the team uses for communication, email is a better choice than a richer medium; when using email the team will have fewer misunderstandings and more effective and satisfying communication with one another. Challenges Related to Cultural Approaches to Leadership, Knowledge Sharing, and Conflict Resolution Because members of global virtual teams hold diverse cultural values and beliefs, they are likely to have differing approaches to relating to the team leader, sharing knowledge with their teammates, and expressing and resolving conflict within the team. This section discusses the types of challenges that may arise and offers suggestions for addressing them. Leadership Perceptions of what it means to be a leader and of what constitutes effective leadership differ considerably across cultures. While most cultures value leaders who are decisive, honest, and able to motivate others, qualities like “ambition, formality, risk-taking, and self-effacement are valued in some cultures but not in others” (Symons & Stenzel, 2007, p. 4). Further, while communication skills are perceived as important for leaders in all cultures, communication styles vary greatly across cultures (See Chapter 5). Cultural differences may influence the view that a team member takes of the appropriate relationship between team members and the leader. Hofstede’s power distance dimension has to do with how accepting people are of unequal distribution of power within society. Individuals from high power distance cultures are likely to establish formal relationships with the team leader and expect a topdown approach to communication within the team. They will be likely to defer to the team leader. In a study of knowledge sharing in virtual teams, Klitmøller and Lauring (2013) found that in videoconferences, Indian team members would often nod as a sign of respect even when they did not fully understand the point that was being explained. The power distance dimension may even influence how team members use technology for communication. In a study of virtual teams in South Korea, Lee (2000) found that team members were reluctant to use email to communicate with the team leader because they felt that email was too informal a medium and did not convey the proper respect to someone above them in the corporate hierarchy. Team members from low power distance cultures, by contrast, will approach the team leader in an informal manner and will feel free to challenge the leader’s

108

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

decisions. They will expect a more democratic approach to decision making within the team and will not hesitate to contribute their ideas to the discussion. Team members who expect a more formal hierarchy may misinterpret the actions of individuals from low power distance cultures as being disrespectful of the team leader. On the other hand, teammates from low power distance cultures may become frustrated by their high power distance colleagues’ deference to the team leader and their unwillingness to engage in group decision making. Knowledge Sharing Knowledge management is the process of gathering, developing, sharing, distributing, and effectively using an organization’s information assets. Knowledge sharing encompasses both the distribution of existing knowledge within the team and the importing of new knowledge from outside the team (Rosen, Furst, & Blackburn, 2007). In order to succeed, virtual teams must be adept at managing their information resources. Ideally, a team will develop a shared knowledge base that is the result of a “regular and frequent reciprocal cross-cultural exchange of ideas,” which can lead to new team-created solutions (Zakaria, Amelinckx, & Wilemon, 2004, p. 18). The success of a virtual team depends on the team’s ability to build on the knowledge of all members of the team and to work collaboratively, particularly when each team member may possess unique information needed to address a problem or meet a challenge. A great benefit of global virtual teams is the potential to bring together diverse perspectives, resources, and creative ideas to solve problems and achieve goals. However, the very cultural differences that enrich virtual teams may also restrict or prevent knowledge sharing within them. Differences in both national culture and disciplinary culture may prevent knowledge sharing. The members of a particular profession share a frame of reference or a cognitive structure (Weick & Roberts, 1993) that shapes their perception and interpretation of the goals of a project and of their teammates and their contributions to the project (Sackmann & Friesl, 2007). When team members have different cultural values and beliefs as well as different communication styles, they may not feel a strong identification with the team as a whole, and this feeling may prevent them from expressing their viewpoints. Team members may be reluctant to share information if they believe that their contributions will be criticized harshly, will not be valued, or will in some way diminish their status or position in the team. They will also hesitate to share information that they possess if they do not believe that their teammates will reciprocate (Rosen et al., 2007). On one hand, team members may be worried that if they share unsolicited information, their behavior will be perceived as showing off. On the other hand, they may fear that if they share inaccurate information they will lose credibility with their teammates. In addition to preventing team members from sharing knowledge, cultural differences may also prevent individuals from requesting information from their

Addressing Cultural Challenges •

109

teammates. They may be concerned that asking for information will cause their teammates to believe that they do not know what they are doing and that they will be branded as incompetent (Rosen et al., 2007). Further, even when team members are willing to share information, cultural differences may influence the way they archive data and formulate responses, the promptness with which they respond to their teammates’ questions and requests, and the media they use to communicate information. There are two types of knowledge that are typically shared in virtual teams: equivocal knowledge and canonical knowledge. Equivocal knowledge is information on issues or tasks that are open to varying interpretations. In other words, it is information related to questions for which there is not one definite answer. For example, an equivocal message might be information about possible approaches to solving a difficult problem faced by the team. Equivocal knowledge is more complex than canonical knowledge; canonical knowledge is explicit and unambiguous information. An example of canonical knowledge might be reiteration of the scheduled dates for team meetings; in other words, it is simple factual information. Because the exchange of canonical knowledge does not depend on contextual cues, lean media are a good choice for sharing this type of information. In fact, using rich media to share canonical knowledge may prove unnecessarily complex; email is an effective medium for sharing simple explicit information. Common Ground and Shared Mental Models Virtual teams function more effectively and will be more likely to share knowledge openly within the team when team members have established some common ground; common ground can be defined as knowledge and beliefs that individuals share that can serve as a basis for mutual understanding (Clark & Brennan, 1991). If team members can establish common ground, their ability to communicate will be enhanced and their productivity will be increased (Olson & Olson, 2000). Once teams have common ground, they can move on to the process of developing shared mental models. Shared mental models are “team members’ shared, organized understanding and mental representation of knowledge about key elements of the team’s relevant environment” (Mohammed & Dumville, 2001, p. 90). Through mental models, team members can determine which actions to perform in order to coordinate their contributions to the team with those of their teammates. Having a shared mental model can also reduce anxiety by helping individuals predict the type of resources and information their teammates may require of them (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993). Such models can greatly enhance communication within the team and increase open sharing of knowledge. If team members have established shared mental models for what constitutes effective communication within the team, they will be likely to communicate more freely because they will feel confident regarding their contributions and the

110

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

expectations teammates have of them. Members of diverse cultures can benefit greatly from shared mental models since they will have common frames of reference to draw upon rather than relying on their often divergent cultural or disciplinary frames of reference. Conflict and Culture Even teams whose members have established effective communication and shared perceptions of the work at hand may experience conflict (See Chapter 3, Conflict; Chapter 5, Preventing and Managing Conflict). Conflict may be defined as a situation in which two or more interdependent individuals have incompatible expectations, processes, values, or goals. There are three types of conflict that may occur in teams: relational conflict, task conflict, and process conflict. Relational conflict has to do with interpersonal tensions within a team; such tensions may result from stereotypical perceptions, miscommunication, or behaviors that are perceived as negative. Relational conflict almost always has a negative effect on the performance of the team. Task conflict has to do with disagreement over approaches to a particular task, about objectives, and about the content of decisions. Process conflict involves disagreement over the team’s methods and with how various aspects of the work should be handled. Differing ideas about resource delegation and the assignment of duties may lead to process conflicts. Such conflicts typically decrease productivity in teams (Gallenkamp, Assmann, Drescher, Picot, & Welpe, 2010). Attitudes toward conflict and cooperation vary across cultures. In general, members of collectivist cultures will be more cooperative in team settings because they place the interests of the group before their own interests. Contributing to the good of the team is satisfying to collectivist team members; they will feel a strong sense of group identity and fulfillment when they help the team achieve its goals. Team members from individualist cultures, on the other hand, will see cooperation as attractive only if they believe that by working with the team they will receive personal benefits that they would not be able to obtain working alone (Gallenkamp et al., 2010). Conflict Resolution While cultural differences may play a role in causing conflict among members of virtual teams, different approaches to conflict resolution across cultures may actually have the potential to escalate conflicts once they occur. There are five different conflict resolution styles that are commonly used: dominating, integrating, compromising, obliging, and avoiding. Individuals using the dominating style tend to be concerned with winning. They are most concerned about their own self-esteem and interests; they are assertive and forceful in order to achieve their ends. Essentially the domineering style leads to a win-lose scenario. Such a style is unlikely to foster team harmony. Using this style to resolve a task or process conflict may lead to relational con-

Addressing Cultural Challenges •

111

flicts within the team. There are few situations in which such an approach would be the optimal choice. However, it is important to bear in mind that members of some cultures may be most familiar with this style of dealing with conflicts and may need to adapt to other styles in order to prevent serious escalation of conflict within the team. In contrast to the domineering style, the avoiding style of conflict resolution is an attempt to deny the existence of conflict and to withdraw from the situation. Such an approach will not only fail to address the issue at hand but may serve to create even greater conflict and divisiveness within a team. Such an approach may also lead to a breakdown of communication within the team. However, it is valuable to realize that this approach is the result of deeply held cultural values; in some societies, particularly collectivist societies, group harmony is paramount, and people strive to preserve it by denying the existence of any negative information. In fact, this approach may work within a group where everyone shares the same approach to dealing with conflict, because harmony is preserved and the face of the team members is saved. Of course, the problem with such an approach is that rarely are global virtual teams composed only of people from collectivist cultures. Frequently, team members from individualist cultures will perceive the avoiding style as ineffective at best and a potential source of much greater conflict in the future. It is important to bear in mind that collectivist team members have a much greater tolerance for conflict than their individualist colleagues (Triandis, 1995). In the obliging conflict resolution style, one party in the conflict will simply give in and agree with the other party; this approach requires that one party essentially give up his opinions and goals to satisfy the other party. While not a good long-term solution for addressing relational conflicts, such an approach may have some value in process or task conflicts if one party has greater expertise and is more experienced in dealing with a particular task or process. The compromising style requires that each party give up something without really gaining anything; it is a lose-lose scenario. This approach leads the team to an acceptable solution while maintaining the self-esteem of both parties, but it does not lead to a truly satisfying solution. Compromising may be easier and less disruptive to the team than either a dominating or avoiding style, but it does not lead to the best possible solution. More creative solutions to conflict within teams may be arrived at by using the integrating style. This style focuses on the importance of collaboration and open discussion to arrive at an outcome that is satisfactory to both sides; this approach places a high value on the self-esteem of all parties involved in the conflict. Clearly this style is one that will be useful to members of virtual teams because it will serve to maintain harmony within the team while openly addressing areas of disagreement. Research has shown that task conflict may actually have a positive effect on virtual teamwork when it leads to constructive criticism and the sharing of ideas and information (Jehn, 1995). Task conflict may be particularly beneficial

112

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

when teams are working on complex tasks because it can lead team members to consider alternative approaches and perspectives. In her research on the management of intercultural conflicts, communication scholar Stella Ting-Toomey (1994) found differences in the goal orientation of members of individualist and collectivist cultures. Individualist cultures have conflict-management techniques that value a win-win approach and that focus on the importance of specific outcomes and goals. Collectivist cultures, on the other hand, are concerned with preventing the loss of face and are much more concerned with the effect of the conflict and its resolution on the relationships of all parties involved than with specific goals or outcomes. PREPARATION FOR VIRTUAL WORK ACROSS CULTURES When preparing for virtual work with diverse others, individuals should begin with an awareness of the many cultural challenges that have the potential to interfere with the effective functioning of global virtual teams. Awareness is the first step in addressing the challenges. To become a globally competent individual, one should develop various qualities including: cultural awareness and sensitivity, knowledge of other cultures, and respect for cultural differences. A good starting point for virtual team members is intercultural training. Frequently, while learning about other cultures, individuals develop a better understanding of their own cultures. However, while it is valuable to learn about cultural differences, true global competency is much more than learning a collection of isolated facts about differences in beliefs, values, and behaviors across cultures. Much intercultural training has focused on individuals learning about cultural differences and memorizing sets of facts about cultures related to economic, social, political, and religious differences. While it is undeniably useful to learn about other cultures, particularly the cultures of one’s teammates, this approach has the potential to reinforce cultural stereotypes and to reduce complex and dynamic cultures to static facts and concepts. This approach may also lead team members to view diverse others through a set of facts that they have learned about a given culture rather than seeing each colleague as an individual. Training that focuses on merely teaching specific knowledge about other cultures, often country-specific knowledge, fails to prepare individuals for the complexity of interactions in a global virtual team setting. Several approaches and strategies can be used to address the cultural challenges that may arise in virtual teams. These include: • • • • •

Providing training in mindfulness Using cultural assessment tools to raise awareness Creating “third ways” of working Establishing common ground and shared mental models Creating a team identity and a feeling of “globalness”

Addressing Cultural Challenges •

113

The Value of Mindfulness Mindfulness is a concept that has been adapted from Eastern philosophy and applied in many fields. Harvard psychologist Ellen Langer (1989) defines mindfulness as a state of mind in which a person is open to new information, is continually creating new categories, and is open to new perspectives. Taking a mindful approach to the study of intercultural communication means striving to view events from the perspective of diverse others and being open to new ways of doing things. One great value of taking a mindful approach to intercultural communication is that it does not require an extensive knowledge of other cultures; team members can be mindful even when interacting with colleagues from cultures about which they know very little. When communicating mindfully across cultures, individuals strive to understand the cultural values, beliefs, and norms of others and to adapt their communication styles to ensure a meaningful exchange. For example, if a team member receives an email message from a colleague that is written in a very formal manner, he can respond in a similarly formal way. When doing so, he is adapting to his colleague’s communication style and making it less likely that he will unintentionally offend that colleague. It requires an effort because the individual must take the time to reflect on the nature of the message sent and to write a response in a style that is different from his own normal style. However, that small effort may well enhance the relationship between the two colleagues by showing respect for a cultural difference rather than disregarding it. Team members do not need to memorize a list of cultural variations in order to be sensitive and thoughtful in their dealings with one another. Mindfulness is first and foremost awareness. A mindful communicator pays attention to differences but does not evaluate them as either good or bad. Instead of making judgments or generalizations, she uses her awareness to be sensitive to and respectful of the values, beliefs, and communication styles of those diverse others with whom she is communicating. Such an approach can go a long way toward preventing misunderstandings and conflict. Using Intercultural Training and Assessment Tools Researchers and corporate trainers have developed a number of tools that can be used to examine cultural differences among individuals and to assess cultural competence. Some of these tools may be useful to help raise the cultural awareness and sensitivity of members of virtual teams. Others may be used to help them understand cultural differences in management styles and in conflict resolution styles (See Appendix 2 for a list of tools). While no one tool can replace meaningful relationship building within teams or the need to understand teammates as unique individuals, instruments like the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator may help team members gain a greater awareness of the diverse cultural perspectives that exist within their particular team.

114

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

When interacting with members of other cultures, individuals often gain a new perspective on their own culture. As Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity demonstrates, when individuals move from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism, they move from viewing the beliefs and values of their own culture as the “only” way or the “right” way to behave in the world, to seeing them as one set of values and beliefs among many, as one way to behave—not the only way. The Peterson Cultural Style Indicator is an instrument that allows professionals and students to compare their cultural style to the typical style of people in over seventy countries (Peterson Cultural Style Indicator, n.d.). This tool consists of 25 questions and takes 20–30 minutes to complete. It offers insights into how an individual’s cultural style might impact his “professional relationships, decision making, [and] management style” (Peterson Cultural Style Indicator, n.d., para. 3) when interacting with colleagues from other cultures. The Cultural Style Indicator can be used by individuals or by teams; teams can use the feedback to understand how their different styles may influence their interactions with one another. Creating “Third Ways” of Working In their book, GlobalWork: Bridging Distance, Culture, and Time, O’HaraDevereaux and Johansen (1994) suggest that in global teams leaders need to find “third ways” of working and interacting; “third ways” are approaches to work that do not privilege any one cultural approach over another. They go on to suggest that leaders give team members the opportunity to help establish the team’s routines and practices (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994). Teams will have greater harmony and efficiency if the team members are able to put aside some of their own culturally determined behaviors and create new shared team behaviors and norms (Suchan & Hayzak, 2001). If team members can develop their own ways of working together and their own standards for communication, they are less likely to experience miscommunication and conflict. Of course, for such patterns of interaction to be put in place, team members must begin by acknowledging their different styles and must find a way to create a new team “culture” that is unique to their particular group. The team leader can play a significant role in fostering the development of a team culture that draws on the backgrounds of all team members but does not privilege any one culture; however, in order for team leaders to play such a role, they must first gain awareness of their own cultural biases and how such attitudes or beliefs may influence how they interpret and respond to the behavior of team members (Duarte & Snyder, 2006). More discussion of the role of the team leader in establishing a positive team atmosphere and fostering effective communication and collaboration can be found in Chapter 5: Addressing Management Challenges.

Addressing Cultural Challenges •

115

Establishing Common Ground and Shared Mental Models Once team members have developed an awareness of and insight into how their own cultural perspectives may differ from those of their teammates, they face the task of finding common ground. In order to establish common ground, it is useful for team members to focus on shared knowledge and beliefs; if the teammates share a disciplinary culture, they may draw upon their disciplinary knowledge and practices as a starting point for establishing relationships that bridge differences in national culture. Similarly, team members from diverse national cultures may establish common ground based on the organizational structure of the corporation for which they work. Even teams that do not share the same disciplinary or corporate culture can find common ground through their commitment to completing the task at hand, whether they are engaged in a short-term project or a complex, ongoing collaboration. For this reason, one of the first tasks at the start of virtual collaboration should be establishing common goals for the project and agreed-upon procedures for meeting those goals. Team leaders can facilitate the process of developing team goals and procedures by giving team members the opportunity to learn about one another’s backgrounds, expertise, and experience even before work on the project begins. For example, the team leader can create an expert directory that includes information on all members of the team and details their qualifications, education, experience, and track record with similar projects (Hunsaker & Hunsaker, 2008). Once team members know something about their colleagues, they are more likely to recognize their potential to contribute to the team and to be willing to invest time in working with them to establish shared approaches to the work at hand. Without first establishing common ground, it will be difficult for team members to develop shared mental models; these models can pertain to the team members’ perception of the challenges inherent in the project, the best way to approach the work to be completed, and the appropriate means for team members to use for communication with one another. Although every project may be slightly different, most teams will need to communicate effectively, share knowledge, establish guidelines for decision making and providing feedback, and set deadlines for meeting project milestones. Because members of diverse cultures have different communication styles (See Communication Challenges), it is helpful for teams to consciously determine how they will use ICTs to share information and knowledge with one another. Communication will be more effective if the team develops routines of communication. For example, team members can all agree that when sending emails they will place any requested actions in the final paragraph of the email. This simple strategy can ensure that team members will be aware of the actions they are being asked to perform rather than having the requests get buried somewhere in the middle of a long email message.

116

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Formation of a Group Identity Together with the development of shared mental models, the formation of a team identity is a good predictor of a virtual team’s success. It is natural for individuals to identify with others who share their national, disciplinary, or organizational cultures. Participation in virtual teamwork often requires that team members move beyond their cultural comfort zone and adapt to new behavior patterns for working and communicating with their colleagues. As discussed earlier in this chapter, cultural differences have the potential to split team members into factions that are reluctant to share information with colleagues whom they perceive as members of an out-group—oftentimes an out-group that they consider to be inferior to their own in-group in some significant way. Such divisiveness can derail virtual work and lead to misunderstanding and conflict and, perhaps, the complete failure of the team to accomplish its goals. A shared team identity established early in the lifecycle of the project can help prevent the formation of faultlines within virtual teams. Typically, the leader will take the initiative in structuring early interactions among team members designed to break down barriers and short-circuit stereotypical thinking. Such exercises can also be designed to encourage team members to view themselves as “global” individuals rather than as members of a particular national culture. Feelings of “globalness” (Burn & Bamett, 1999; Huang & Trauth, 2010) can help team members move toward ethnorelativism. In Chapter 5, the role of the team leader in fostering a strong team identity is discussed in more detail. SUMMARY Cultural challenges can be related to disciplinary and organizational cultures but are more typically related to differences in national cultures among members of virtual teams. Such challenges are often related to the different values, beliefs, and norms that members of diverse cultures have for behavior in general and for interacting with members of out-groups in particular. Individuals who have had limited contact with members of other cultures may hold an ethnocentric view of diverse teammates. They may be more likely to attribute positive qualities to teammates who are members of their own culture than to members of out-groups. Such attitudes can lead to stereotyping and a reluctance to trust teammates, which can in turn lead to the development of divisiveness and conflict within the team. Differing communication styles across cultures have the potential to exacerbate the situation since individuals may become frustrated or even offended by communication styles that differ greatly from their own. Additionally, the reliance on technology in virtual work means that the lack of nonverbal communication cues may fuel misunderstandings within the team. Members of global virtual teams are also likely to have different cultural approaches to relating to leaders, sharing knowledge, and dealing with conflict.

Addressing Cultural Challenges •

117

Despite all these complex challenges, there are approaches to virtual work that can be successful and harmonious. Taking a mindful approach to communication with diverse others is very effective and can be applied by anyone, even team members who have little or no knowledge of other cultures. Cultural assessment tools are useful to help team members move toward ethnorelativism; such tools can help individuals begin to view their own culture as one among many rather than as the center of reality. Team leaders can be instrumental in overcoming cultural challenges by helping team members develop “third ways” of working; third ways are approaches to collaborative work that do not privilege any one cultural perspective. Such approaches can be developed once team members have established common ground by focusing on areas of commonality; ideally, as a result of establishing common ground, team members will be able to establish routines of communication and agreed-upon processes for performing necessary tasks. Shared perspectives on the team project and on the best means for accomplishing the goals of the team are shared mental models. According to shared reality theory (Hardin & Higgins, 1996), shared mental models are developed and maintained through interpersonal relationships. When team members engage in both task-related and social communication, they are also likely to be willing to share knowledge and create new ideas (Albrecht & Ropp, 1984). When team members have shared mental models, they will perform more harmoniously and effectively. Those teams that can move beyond cultural differences to establish a team identity and a feeling of “globalness” that bonds them together as an in-group are much more likely to succeed in virtual work.

PART III GUIDELINES FOR STRUCTURING SUCCESSFUL VIRTUAL TEAM PROJECTS

CHAPTER 7

BEST PRACTICES FOR PARTICIPANTS IN VIRTUAL TEAMS

Ideally everyone [on the team] will have the same understanding of: • The overall strategy • Business reasons for doing the task at hand • Reasons why it’s being done in a particular way • Ensuring the right tasks are being done by the right people and that they have the requisite skills • Project deadlines If people have a good understanding of this, they generally get on board and are serious about delivering the best results that they can. —Knowledge Manager at an international software company INTRODUCTION As discussed in the preceding chapters, people can successfully work together in virtual teams. Barriers relating to physical location, time zones, organizational differences, technical difficulties, and intercultural issues can be overcome (See Virtual Teams in Higher Education: A Handbook for Students and Teachers, pages 121–129. Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing 121 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

122

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Chapters 3 through 6), provided a number of guidelines are followed and the issues are resolved as soon as possible (Dickey, McLure Wasko, Chudoba, & Thatcher, 2006; Kezsbom, 2000). Some of these barriers are not present in faceto-face teams so they add an extra dimension to virtual teams and, therefore, make them more complex (Kezsbom, 2000; Rutkowski, Vogel, Van Genuchten, Bemelmans, & Favier, 2002). This chapter provides an outline of best practices that should be employed when participating in virtual teams, whether they are student or workplace teams. While some of the activities in this chapter relate to project organization—and may, therefore, be the responsibility of faculty members rather than students in educational settings (See Chapter 8)—it is important that students are aware of the best way to approach virtual teamwork. Furthermore, as a virtual team participant might also be a team leader, she will have to assume some responsibility for organizational activities (e.g., defining team roles and providing guidelines to other team members). The guidelines in this chapter, which are drawn from the literature discussed in earlier chapters, may be used like a checklist for virtual team participants and leaders. In particular, this chapter discusses the importance of: • • • • • • •

Identifying leaders and defining clear roles for team members Providing clear guidelines and goals Creating feelings of trust, respect and obligation Facilitating social- as well as task-oriented communication Rewarding performance Allocating adequate time Offering appropriate technology

The chapter concludes with a summary of the main guidelines and principles that should apply to participants working in virtual teams. DEFINE TEAM MEMBERS’ ROLES This section examines the importance of identifying leaders and defining clear roles for each team member. Leaders “[L]eadership is a central challenge in virtual teams” (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005, p. 80). Leaders can be assigned from the top-down (by faculty or management) or chosen informally among team members, as may be the case in student virtual teams. Regardless of which route is taken, there must be some form of leadership. Good leadership is vital in face-to-face teams but it is even more critical in virtual teams, as members are separated by time and space. Hertel et al. (2005) note that it is critical that leaders are themselves motivated to achieve team goals, and this motivation needs to be even stronger when leading virtual teams due to the many challenges they face.

Best Practices for Participants in Virtual Teams

•

123

In their study of student virtual teams, Jarvenpaa, Knoll, and Leidner (1998) found that teams displaying high trust tended to rotate the role of leader; in other words, members assumed the role when and as needed. In another review of virtual team literature, Hertel et al. (2005) observed that there are advantages to delegating functions to virtual team members. Bell and Kozlowski (2002) spoke about two important leadership functions that must be undertaken: (1) developing and shaping team processes and (2) managing team performance. Lurey and Raisinghani (2001) also talk about the importance of establishing positive team processes and creating performance reward systems. In addition, leaders must support relations amongst team members and select qualified members for the team. Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1998) outlined key attributes that leaders (or managers) should look for when choosing members for virtual teamwork; these attributes are “responsibility, dependability, independence, and self-sufficiency” (n.p.). In situations where faculty must organize students into teams, it is often necessary to include qualified with not-so-qualified members in a team, to give each team an equal chance of success. If leaders focus on the key roles of shaping team processes and managing performance, they are more likely to have effective teams, regardless of whether they are face-to-face or virtual teams (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). As discussed in Chapter 3, swift trust is the type of trust that is formed quickly in temporary teams. Zaccaro and Bader (2003) observed that leaders can facilitate the development of swift trust by getting everyone to interact quickly online. However, it is also vital that the leader manages online communications and keeps a record of who is doing what and when; this archive not only serves as a record, but it also facilitates transparency and trust. It is also the responsibility of the leader to deal with conflict by repairing “broken trust” (Zaccaro & Bader, 2003, p. 385), which also facilitates team processes. As discussed in this section and in Chapter 5, leaders play a critical role in the performance of virtual teams. In the context of student virtual teams, leaders have a role to play in providing clear guidelines and goals; creating feelings of trust, respect, and obligation; and facilitating social- as well as task-oriented communication. Other Team Members As discussed in the previous section (See Leaders), virtual teams can be successful if some of the managerial functions are delegated to team participants. That said, delegation does not necessarily mean members should work independently; Jarvenpaa et al. (1998) observed that high-trust team members worked interdependently, not independently, by providing constructive feedback on others’ work. Jarvenpaa et al. also noted that high-trust team members “exhibited individual initiative, volunteered for roles, and met their commitments” (1998, p. 52). They were also good at challenging and dealing with “free-riders” (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998, p. 52). In a study of student virtual teams, Flammia, Cleary, and Slattery

124

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

(2010) reported that teams that “divided up the project roles and responsibilities” tended to be the most satisfied with the team experience (p. 97). In another study of student virtual teams, Iacono and Weisband (1997) found that successful team members were proactive and selective about dealing with team activities; they did not respond to every message but they were also capable of multitasking. They also observed that once team members demonstrated that they were committed to the team goals, “high levels of swift trust were maintained and performance improved” (p. 419). PROVIDE CLEAR GUIDELINES AND GOALS It is vital that all teams—whether they are face-to-face or virtual—share a common goal or purpose that requires the team members to work together (Hertel et al., 2005; Kezsbom, 2000; Lipnack & Stamps, 1999; Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001). If team members are not clear about the goals of a project, performance will be affected (Kezsbom, 2000). Kezsbom also observed that a sense of shared purpose often does not arise until team members have had disagreements and reflected on those disagreements. In the case of virtual teams, extra efforts need to be made to develop “formal processes” (Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001, p. 532). Virtual team members need to be very clear about the goals; they must be explicit and a structure must be in place to facilitate achievement of those goals (Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001). Jarvenpaa et al. (1998) spoke about the fact that high-trust virtual teams discussed goals in greater detail than low-trust teams. The leader can facilitate clarity of goals by defining team members’ roles early on and clarifying any confusion that arises, preferably as soon as possible (in the case of student projects, the team leader should convey the team’s confusion to the faculty organizers and request clarification). If team members are unclear about the goal or their role in achieving that goal, they may become confused, frustrated, and demotivated (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). Hertel et al. (2005) also point out that goals and roles should not conflict with other work being undertaken by members. CREATE FEELINGS OF TRUST, RESPECT, AND OBLIGATION This section re-emphasizes the importance of encouraging trust, managing conflict, and being culturally aware and sensitive, when participating in virtual teams. Trust As discussed earlier (See Chapter 3, Challenges in Developing and Maintaining Trust), trust is a crucial element for successful team performance (Kezsbom, 2000). To facilitate trust in student virtual teams, Jarvenpaa et al. (1998) issued team-building exercises. These exercises required team members to post autobiographies about themselves, describing not only their personal backgrounds and

Best Practices for Participants in Virtual Teams

•

125

interests but also which skills they could bring to the project and what they hoped to achieve from it. Later exercises asked students to comment on other teammates’ performance (or integrity), in follow-up survey questions. The goal of team-building exercises should be to facilitate trust and interdependency rather than independence among team members (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998; Kezsbom, 2000). While formal team-building exercises are usually initiated by faculty rather than students (See Chapter 8), student leaders should also encourage their team members to share some information about themselves and to give constructive feedback to teammates, when appropriate. When students feel part of an open community and can engage in risk-free expression, they are more likely to trust one another. Ideally, team members should receive some initial training or conduct some private study on the importance of trust and how it can be nurtured. Virtual teams can be slow to get going and, coupled with time zone and cultural differences, can be fraught with delays and miscommunications. If team members do not keep their word or consider others’ work schedules, trust will not be fostered. Team members need to cooperate and be reliable (Kezsbom, 2000) to ensure a successful outcome. Chapter 3 discusses the concept of swift trust, which is a feature of successful temporary virtual teams (Coppola, Hiltz, & Rotter, 2004; Iacono & Weisband, 1997). If swift trust is created early on (ideally in the first week or so of the project), it can be maintained throughout, provided there is active participation by all team members (Coppola et al., 2004). In the early stages of a project, online communication should focus on the goals and tasks that need to be undertaken, but non-task communication can also complement task-oriented communication (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). While swift trust can be facilitated by faculty organizers of virtual team projects (See Chapter 8), it is also important for students to understand why they should engage with all project-related activities. Jarvenpaa and Leidner emphasize the importance of responses and commitment; it is not enough for team members to simply discuss goals and tasks. Jarvenpaa et al. (1998) found that high-trust members in student virtual teams were generous in offering encouragement and enthusiasm to teammates. They also demonstrated empathy when dealing with challenging issues. Rather than let an issue escalate into a major disagreement, alternative suggestions were offered to help diffuse the situation. High-trust team members tended to offer constructive feedback such as editing comments and reorganizing pointers. Using the kinds of strategies outlined in this section, a student leader can play a formative role in facilitating trust amongst team members. Conflict While conflict is an inevitable feature of teamwork, it can be successfully managed (See Chapter 5, Preventing and Managing Conflict). Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1998) advise dealing with issues and concerns early on, so they do not escalate. However, it can be difficult to resolve major conflicts when there is a record of

126

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

the conflict online (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998), as would be the case in student discussion forums, for example. If one team member has initiated the conflict, it is best if the leader contacts that individual privately, rather than in a public forum (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998), to minimise escalation of the problem. As outlined in the earlier section on leaders’ roles, the leader can also help prevent conflicts by maintaining a record of team roles and responsibilities, as well as the goals that need to be achieved. This record can also include details on the leader’s responses to specific issues and concerns, thereby keeping all teammates aware of the status of the project at any given time. As discussed in Chapter 4, project management tools can also facilitate the sharing of task-related information and the tracking of team roles and responsibilities. Culture and Communication As discussed in Chapters 3 and 6, intercultural communication can be a challenge in virtual teams. Team members new to virtual teamwork may not be aware of cultural nuances that can cause issues for teammates. Anawati and Craig (2006) propose that team members are more likely to “understand and promote cultural awareness” (p. 49) as they become more comfortable with one another. They suggest offering cultural training for team members to raise team members’ awareness of how performance can be affected by cultural and communication differences. In their own study of workplace virtual teams, Anawati and Craig found that team members who had received some cultural training were more likely to adapt their behavior accordingly. Topics that could be addressed in intercultural training could include understanding silence, using humor appropriately, confirming understanding, offering praise and criticism, avoiding use of slang and jargon, and considering religious beliefs (Anawati & Craig, 2006). This training could also include instruction on the appropriate use of nonverbal communication and netiquette (Chase, 1999; Kezsbom, 2000). Hertel et al. (2005) suggest offering “kick-off” workshops that prepare team members for the challenges of virtual teamwork (p. 89). If formal training cannot be provided by the faculty organizers, students can use cultural assessment tools, such as those listed in Appendix 2, to evaluate their own levels of cultural awareness and adaptability. Many colleges also run seminars on intercultural awareness and international communication, which would also benefit students participating in virtual team projects. FACILITATE SOCIAL—AS WELL AS TASK-ORIENTED COMMUNICATION Online, there are fewer opportunities for individuals to get to know one another, unlike in corporations where face-to-face conversations and team-building exercises often facilitate bonding (Kezsbom, 2000). While Jarvenpaa et al. (1998) observed that communication was primarily task-oriented in high-trust student teams (that said, it was still empathetic), Lurey and Raisinghani (2001) found

Best Practices for Participants in Virtual Teams

•

127

that workplace team members expressed a desire for more social dialogue, with a view to developing team relations. In their studies of student virtual teams, Andrews and Starke-Meyerring (2005) and Flammia et al. (2010) noted that facilitating discussions about team members’ personal backgrounds and interests helps them to work towards a common goal. Lin, Standing, and Liu (2008) found that social communication was critical to team performance and satisfaction in student virtual teams and that this type of communication should be intentionally incorporated into the process, particularly in the early stages. Leaders should facilitate this communication. In their review of literature on virtual teams in the workplace, Hertel et al. (2005) suggest mixing informal socioemotional communication with performance-related feedback. A healthy balance of social- as well as task-oriented communication should facilitate not only good relations and team cohesion, but also effective performance (Lin et al., 2008). If they are feasible, face-to-face meetings or videoconferences can greatly facilitate good relations (Kezsbom, 2000; Lin et al., 2008). REWARD PERFORMANCE As discussed in Chapter 5, the leader must ensure that team members work according to schedule and meet project milestones. When team members meet milestones, they should be duly rewarded. In a workplace setting, a reward may take the form of a bonus or a promotion, for example, but other types of rewards are more appropriate in an academic setting. When a student team performs well by reaching a milestone, the team leader can acknowledge and reward the performance by sending a congratulatory email to the whole team. In addition, the leader can showcase examples of excellent work; showcasing will not only give team members an indication of the quality of work that is expected, it will also reward and motivate the team member who submitted that piece of work. Students can also be rewarded in other ways through their participation in virtual team projects; for example, they can form friendships with students in other countries and they can develop transferable skills that can be presented to potential employers. If a team leader can make his teammates aware of the many advantages of participating in the virtual team project—beyond grading incentives—team members are more likely to feel rewarded. If team members are rewarded, they are more likely to feel satisfied (Kezsbom, 2000; Lin et al., 2008; Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001). ALLOCATE ADEQUATE TIME By their very nature, virtual teams tend to be subject to time zone issues (Kezsbom, 2000). An early meeting for one team member can be a late meeting for another. From the outset, team members should agree on a work schedule that ensures no team member has to work unsociable hours; however, if late meetings are really necessary, meeting times should be arranged to ensure no individual is

128

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

unfairly affected throughout the project (Anawati & Craig, 2006). Jarvenpaa et al. (1998) found that high-trust teams regularly discussed schedules and milestones; they also found that these student teams carefully managed the schedule to ensure there was no “downtime” (p. 27). OFFER APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY Chapter 4 discusses different types of communication and collaboration tools, the various challenges associated with technology use, and how these challenges might be addressed. In educational settings, students are not always permitted to choose the technologies; however, when this is an option, students should keep the following recommendations in mind. Kezsbom (2000) recommends developing a “shared space” (p. 35) where people can freely discuss ideas. This “shared space” typically takes the form of an email distribution list or videoconferencing session, but it must be carefully managed so team members regularly avail of it. Lurey and Raisinghani (2001) argue that offering additional technologies will not necessarily improve communication and that a “more structured, formal process” is even more important (p. 10). Typically, virtual teams rely heavily on asynchronous lean media such as email and discussion forums. Asynchronous media are cheap and easy to use, but they can also bring with them issues relating to delayed responses and miscommunication. In their review of literature on workplace virtual teams, Hertel et al. (2005) highlight the reduced richness associated with communication technologies, when compared to face-to-face communication. Nonetheless, lean media also have their advantages in that they can serve as a permanent record of team interactions and progress (Zaccaro & Bader, 2003). As discussed earlier in this chapter, in the section about leaders’ roles, electronic archives can also help foster trust. Synchronous tools such as videoconferencing software can be invaluable, particularly at the early stages when trust and group cohesion need to be formed. Team members can benefit greatly from this face-to-face time (Kezsbom, 2000), although Anawati and Craig (2006) found that “28% [of their workplace team members] suggested that they would much rather initially meet face-to-face and would only use video conferencing as a secondary option” (p. 53). Synchronous tools are also more appropriate choices when tasks are complex (Riopelle et al., 2003). Student leaders need to balance the needs of the team with the nature of the tasks, when deciding which technologies to adopt in virtual team projects. Chase (1999) offers communication tips for virtual teams, which also relate to appropriate technology use. The leader is primarily responsible for helping team members get to know and trust one another online. She suggests that they: • Help team members get acquainted with one another (e.g., by initiating online discussions early on in the project and encouraging other team members to join in).

Best Practices for Participants in Virtual Teams

•

129

• Teach team members how to communicate online (e.g., by making netiquette guidelines available to team members). • Manage conflicts early on, because there is a greater risk of “flaming” online (e.g., by offering possible solutions to issues that are starting to emerge). • Make sure everyone is comfortable with the technologies they are required to use (e.g., by offering practical support in the form of ‘how-to’ resources). SUMMARY There are a number of issues that need to be considered when participating in virtual team projects, either as a leader or as a team member. While faculty members can greatly facilitate positive outcomes for student virtual team projects (See Chapter 8), individual student leaders can also contribute greatly to the success of their own team projects by providing clear goals and defining team members’ roles. Leaders should also facilitate social and task-oriented communication early in the project and should strive to create feelings of trust, respect, and obligation among team members. Finally, leaders should offer appropriate technology, allocate adequate time for the project, and reward team members’ performance. Some basic principles are vital for effective teams, particularly virtual teams. Teams should be offered “kick-off” meetings and training to prepare them for virtual teamwork. If this kind of training cannot be facilitated by the faculty organizers (See Chapter 8), students should conduct their own research on the typical challenges inherent in virtual teamwork, and how best to deal with them, to ensure they are suitably prepared for the project. The role and purpose of the project should be clearly defined. While Chapter 8 discusses the need for faculty to communicate the parameters of the project clearly to students, it is also the responsibility of student leaders to ensure that their teammates are clear about the project requirements. Team processes should be carefully managed by leaders to reduce the risk of miscommunication. Well-coordinated teams are more likely to perform effectively. Team members should be proactive and selective about dealing with project tasks. Social and task-oriented communication is necessary to facilitate the formation of relationships and the creation of group cohesion. Team members must work interdependently rather than independently. Finally, there must be an acceptance among all members that teamwork is beneficial.

CHAPTER 8

BEST PRACTICES FOR FACULTY CONDUCTING VIRTUAL TEAM PROJECTS

Overall, I have found this virtual team assignment project to be a beneficial process. I have enjoyed working with my US colleagues. They have been enthusiastic, professional and helpful in all aspects of the virtual team process. The project was demanding. At every stage, little problems crop up that need to be resolved. These issues are easily surmountable with good, clear, concise and friendly interaction that gets these problems resolved quickly. —Student from the University of Limerick on his experience as a student in a virtual team in 2015 INTRODUCTION Designing student virtual team projects is complex; successful projects require planning, preparation, and reflection. This chapter offers a set of best practices for faculty members conducting student virtual team projects. These guidelines Virtual Teams in Higher Education: A Handbook for Students and Teachers, pages 131–142. Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing 131 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

132

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

take faculty members through all phases of the process, from the initial stages of finding colleagues with whom to collaborate to the final evaluation and review of projects. The advice offered in this section is drawn not only from published research on the subject, but also from the experiences of the authors’ work on numerous virtual team projects during the past ten years. IDENTIFYING SUITABLE COURSES AND PARTNERS Educators who are interested in including a virtual team component in one of their courses might well begin by examining their own programs, courses, and curricula to determine how, when, and where best to incorporate the project. Clark and Gibb (2006, p. 765) describe a virtual team project they organized as a “grounded experiential exercise.” Their project involved undergraduate students in an online strategy course working together in virtual teams, each comprising four students. They note that such projects are suitable for any course that teaches students skills they are likely to need to apply in a virtual work setting upon graduation. Course topics and associated learning outcomes that lend themselves to virtual team assignments include project management, communication theory, virtual communication, intercultural communication, or collaboration technologies. Courses need to be sufficiently flexible to incorporate a team assignment that may run over several weeks. For that reason, a virtual team project may work better in advanced undergraduate or graduate courses where course materials are flexible and instructor-led. For example, the authors have adopted virtual team projects in advanced undergraduate and graduate courses where students learn to apply theories of collaboration technologies, documentation management, information design, procedural writing, or other related topics. Further, students need to be at a sufficiently advanced stage of their studies in the discipline to be capable of contributing in meaningful and mature ways. Students in their first or second semesters of undergraduate study might not be advanced enough to be able to participate or to get value from the assignment. Advanced undergraduate or graduate students, on the other hand, have much to contribute and to gain from working in a student virtual team. Once faculty have identified a suitable course and cohort of students for a virtual team project, the next stage involves exploring academic programs in other universities or countries, depending on the type of virtual team project envisaged, to determine whether potential collaborators’ curricula have similar or relevant content that could form the basis of student team collaborations. During this phase, faculty will need to seek programs and courses that have related or parallel learning outcomes. Most institutions publish program outlines, and in many cases detailed course outlines, online. Faculty must be prepared to compromise to some degree, to ensure that both their and potential partner’s students are able to achieve the required learning outcomes through the project. In addition to examining program and course content, it is also a good idea to review the academic calendar of the potential collaborator’s institution to ensure

Best Practices for Faculty Conducting Virtual Team Projects •

133

that students’ schedules in each institution would overlap sufficiently to run a project of several weeks’ duration. Most institutions publish an academic calendar online. Having established these baseline requirements, the faculty member can make contact with potential faculty collaborators, perhaps initially by email with a follow-up Skype call to discuss the project in detail. It would also be helpful to identify a conference or other potential meeting opportunity. For example, the authors first met at the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (IPCC)1 in Limerick, Ireland in July 2005, and began their collaboration in the fall semester of 2006. Madelyn had contacted Yvonne in advance of the conference to outline her ideas for collaboration. During initial discussions, it is also important to consider shared values, work ethics, beliefs about teaching and research, and other related personal and professional traits that are likely to affect the working relationship of collaborators. As Berry (2011, p. 4) explains, “[s]hared goals and shared understandings are required on any team, and negotiation of these common goals is an intrinsic part of the team-building process.” Berry observes that in virtual teams, shared understandings are likely to be weaker, thus necessitating exceptionally clear communication among the faculty organizers in the initial project formation stage. For example, the authors shared information on project details, institutional bureaucracy, and technologies before embarking on the project. They also visited one another’s online courses to better understand content and delivery approaches. Trust is discussed throughout this book as a feature of successful collaborations. For example, Chapter 3 explains how trust is fostered through communication, Chapter 5 describes how managers can help to establish trust in virtual teams, and Chapter 6 outlines challenges relating to trust in intercultural communication settings. Although the focus is primarily on enabling trusting relationships among student team members in earlier chapters, faculty partners also need to establish and nurture a strong partnership, which, in the best case scenario, will be durable over several years and many iterations of student projects. Therefore, faculty members who plan to work together need to consider how to build trust. They should understand tenets of interpersonal and socioemotional communication (See Chapter 3). If they are working with partners from other cultures, they need to consider how cultural differences can manifest in both professional and personal interactions. They may need to research theories and models of culture that will help them to understand how to interpret behavior, such as those discussed in Chapter 6. PLANNING THE FIRST COLLABORATIVE PROJECT Once collaborators have agreed that they wish to work together to establish a virtual team project, they need to begin planning. It is vital to plan all collaboration projects carefully, but especially the first one. During planning phases, faculty members might share documents to give each other more information on their

134

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

courses, programs, learning outcomes, grading mechanisms and deadlines, and other administrative concerns. Since many courses now run on virtual learning environments (VLEs), faculty members could visit one another’s classes to get a stronger sense of the materials covered and the ways that the course, the faculty memeber, and the partner institution function. They might also share their ideas for how the collaboration project could work and outline their expectations, either by sharing documents, participating in an on-going asynchronous online discussion, or having a telephone conversation. For example, the authors ran the first iteration of their project over a year after first meeting. This time gave them the opportunity to get to know one another, both virtually and face-to-face at a conference, and to agree on the parameters for the first project. It enabled them to share information and to make decisions about the many aspects of collaboration that all organizers of virtual team projects in higher education encounter, as outlined in subsequent sections. These aspects include project tasks and deliverables, team formations, communicating with students during the project, enabling and encouraging student-to-student communication, technology choices, grading schemes, and gathering research data. All of these aspects of virtual team collaboration must be carefully planned for all projects. It is important to take a reflective, mindful, and patient approach to planning. This stage may seem unnecessary or a waste of time as no students are yet involved, and faculty may wish to skip or curtail this phase. Nevertheless, time invested in planning will reap substantial rewards when the first project is underway. Faculty should try to predict and plan for possible student queries and potential challenges. Learning from others’ experiences is essential at this stage, and faculty need to take some time to read research articles and books that describe successful and unsuccessful virtual team projects. Earlier chapters in this book, on communication, technology, management, and culture, should prove helpful for faculty members as they plan their first project. OUTLINING THE PARAMETERS OF THE ASSIGNMENT The assignment is at the center of the virtual team collaboration, as the shared goal that team members must work to achieve (Yoon & Johnson, 2008). One of the significant tasks for faculty is to agree on the shape of the team assignment. When outlining the assignment, it is important to provide as much detail as possible to reduce potential anxiety among students. The authors’ assignment descriptions run to four or five U.S. letter pages. These documents typically offer: • • • • •

A detailed introduction that provides context for the assignment Information about project phases A detailed description of each key task and deliverable An outline of deadlines for drafts and final submission Specific instructions for students at each institution

Best Practices for Faculty Conducting Virtual Team Projects •

135

• Academic calendars for each institution so that students are aware of public holidays or breaks when their project partners may not be available to collaborate Appendix 1 includes a detailed case study of one virtual team assignment the authors organized with a colleague at the Université Paris Diderot, Paris, France. Subsequent sections of this chapter discuss the specific details that faculty need to consider when designing assignments: • • • • • •

Deliverables and how they help students to achieve learning outcomes Team formations Technology choices Project life cycle Grading schemes Project review

Deliverables and Learning Outcomes When designing the assignment, faculty will probably require teams to produce certain deliverables, which measure course learning outcomes. Learning outcomes for each virtual team can be diverse but parallel. Members in different locations can work to achieve different but related outcomes. For example, in a virtual team involving students of writing in one institution, and translation in a partner institution (as described in the case study in Appendix 1), the writing team created documentation, enabling them to improve their skills in writing and design, while the translation students improve their translation skills by translating that documentation. All students deepen their understanding of intercultural communication and improve their collaboration skills. They may also learn to use new technologies. Faculty can require group and individual deliverables. For example, the authors design assignments where each team has to produce procedural documentation, comprising one deliverable. A second deliverable in the same assignment is an individual reflective blog or diary where participants discuss their experiences of virtual team work. Johnson, Suriya, Yoon, Berrett, and La Fleur (2002) note the need for clear tasks with a low level of complexity to ensure that virtual team members understand and can communicate about the requirements. Hansen (2006) agrees that a reasonable workload and clear goals are important predictors of success in any student team. The authors recommend that workloads should be manageable, particularly for the first round of a virtual team project. Team Formations An early, and often challenging, task is to organize students into teams. Many factors are important, including team sizes, deciding whether to have self-selecting or teacher-selected teams, and the experience levels of team members. Since

136

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

team members at different locations do not know one another, the process of selecting virtual team members has to be teacher-led to at least some degree. Hansen (2006) advises that professor-selected teams are likely to be more stable, to match workplace practice, to have a more positive learning experience, and ultimately to perform better than student-selected teams. The authors noted an experience gap in one of their early projects, where undergraduate students at one site worked with graduate students at the other site. If such an experience gap exists, faculty may choose to assign members to teams based on experience to ensure a reasonable skills balance within each team. A further consideration when assigning students to teams is that class lists may be available for courses earlier at some institutions that others. One of the challenges of organizing collaborative projects for faculty is to recognize that each institution has its own bureaucratic idiosyncrasies and these may affect planning. Each location needs to have the same number of teams to ensure that each team has members from each location. If possible, each team should include at least two members from each site so that no student feels isolated during the process. The authors have assigned students to teams locally, given each team a number, and then merged teams to form larger virtual teams comprising students from each location involved in the project. Where class sizes at the participating universities differ substantially, it may be necessary to have more team members at one site than others. If a student at one site decides to exit his or her course during the project, a team may consequently have just one team member at that site. If this situation occurs early in the project, faculty can offer to re-assign team members. At later stages in the project, the remaining student may find a reduction in the size of the task commensurate with the reduced capacity, a more appropriate solution. A further consideration for faculty organizing students into teams is the overall team size. Alexander (2006, p. 136) states that the “optimal size for teams in collaborative work is between four and seven.” Large teams can be effective if the primary collaboration tools used are lean (text-based), but rich-media collaboration (e.g., through audio- or videoconferencing) is likely to be of poorer quality in large groups. Scheduling meetings becomes difficult when more people have to be accommodated across time boundaries (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008). Therefore, if several partner institutions are involved in a project, it may not be advisable to have two team members at each site. Hansen’s (2006) research shows that students need to adopt roles within teams for successful outcomes. These roles can be assigned by faculty or self-selected, and students may rotate roles during the course of a project. Hansen’s review of the literature demonstrates that designated roles “help reduce one of the major problems of team assignments which is free-riding or social loafing” (Hansen, 2006, p. 14). Previous research by the authors explores how students adopt roles, including leadership roles, in virtual teams (Flammia, Cleary, & Slattery, 2010). Their study participants reported high levels of subjective satisfaction with the virtual team experience, when they were performing roles within the team that matched their individual strengths. Regardless of whether faculty choose to as-

Best Practices for Faculty Conducting Virtual Team Projects •

137

sign specific roles to teams members, it is helpful to apprise participants of the possible roles they can undertake and of research findings (Flammia et al., 2010) that indicate that teams with designated leaders are more likely to have successful outcomes. Technology Choices Wenger, White, and Smith (2009) outline considerations for selecting collaboration tools for virtual work, including the activities the community engages in and how to support them. Certain types of activities will be typical in a virtual team: discussing topics, meeting online via a text chat or videoconference, announcing events and meetings, uploading and sharing files, and editing one another’s work. Myriad technology choices are available for collaboration, and the range can be overwhelming. Yoon and Johnson (2008) recommend using technologies that facilitate some form of synchronous communication (e.g., online chat) to enable task-based communication, while having an asynchronous tool (e.g., a discussion forum) is also necessary to provide time for reflection (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). As mobile technologies and wi-fi connections become ubiquitous, students expect to be able to participate in education using mobile devices at any time and in any location (Kearney, Schuck, Burden, & Aubusson, 2012). Therefore, students will likely expect to be able to use tools that afford mobile access when collaborating with virtual teammates. Stages of Team Development As outlined in Chapter 3, teams go through several phases in their lifecycle. One way of characterizing team development is Tuckman and Jensen’s model, which can apply to both virtual and face-to-face teams. Typical stages are forming, norming, storming, performing, and adjourning (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). In a virtual team, it is important that faculty build in some time at the forming stage, during which the members are involved in non-task communication as they get to know one another and to understand the nature of online collaboration. Johnson et al. (2002) conducted a study of online master’s degree students participating in virtual teams. They outline how “the time-frame of the project has a direct impact on the development of the virtual teams. Project timelines should be reasonable and allow enough time for students to adjust themselves to work in a virtual environment” (p. 391). Studies of student virtual teams found that it is a good idea to assign a week for socioemotional communication activities, which are linked to trust formation and ultimately better team outcomes (Flammia et al., 2010; Walther & Bunz, 2005). Activities during this stage can include introductions and icebreaker tasks. Salmon (2013) explains that online icebreaker “e-tivities” enable “participants to get to know each other, to contribute rather than lurk, and to become familiar with the platform in use in a fairly safe and fun way” (p. 98).

138

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

When teams are “norming,” they establish ways of working together. These patterns may be conflictual (storming) or harmonious. Conflict is a common challenge in team assignments. Worchel (1986, p. 284) observes how “frighteningly easy it is to initiate conflict; even the simple process of randomly dividing people into different groups spawns in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination.” Conflict can be positive if it helps team members to articulate and work out underlying fears or anxieties (See Chapter 3), but it must be managed to prevent escalation. An effective team leader knows when to intervene and how to prevent conflict (Wakefield, Leidner, & Garrison, 2008). Although Johnson et al. (2002) observed limited evidence of the storming stage of group development in their study of virtual teams, being responsive and having access to records of team communications can enable faculty to detect conflict within student groups and to prevent escalation. During the performing stage, team members work on their assignments. As indicated in previous chapters, strong team performances are predicated upon: • Clear communication about the tasks, clear guidelines about communication and collaboration requirements, and timely responses to student/team queries • Reasonable tasks and a reasonable timeframe for completion • Socioemotional communication leading to trust development among team members • Appropriate technology options and support • Conflict management and training about how to approach conflict situations • Awareness of cultural differences • Assigned roles and effective leadership The last stage in Tuckman and Jensen’s (1977) model of group stages is adjourning, when team members move on to other projects. Faculty can prepare students to adjourn by notifying them of final deadlines, by offering timely feedback on the final assignment, and even by organizing a final videoconference to mark the end of the project. In the authors’ experience, possibly because project timeframes are short, with clearly defined assignments, the adjourning stage does not cause anxiety for student virtual team members. Grading Schemes Institutions may have different grading schemes or criteria. It is essential for faculty to share as much information as possible in advance of designing the project, to ensure that expectations of students are broadly similar but nevertheless adhere to institutional requirements. The authors allocated relatively low value to the first iteration of their virtual team assignment, and thereafter ensured that marks allocated were commensurate with the complexity and demands of the tasks. If possible, faculty should consider incorporating an element of reflection

Best Practices for Faculty Conducting Virtual Team Projects •

139

into the deliverables and grading this element individually. For example, the authors’ students record their individual experiences of collaboration in blogs or reflective journals, which are graded as individual assignments. Project Review Review is an essential stage in virtual team projects. This stage enables instructors to discuss notable successes and challenges, and to plan for future iterations of the project. All participating faculty should meet to discuss the project and its outcomes. This meeting can take place online or face-to-face. If instructors are geographically dispersed, then an online meeting may be more feasible. They should reflect on notable successes, student observations, and opportunities to improve. They can use data available to them to inform the discussion. For example, they will have data about team performances. They will also be aware of their communications with individual team members or groups and any scenarios that have arisen. If students have reflected on the virtual team project through the medium of a blog or reflective diary, their reflections will likely help faculty members to understand their perspectives and to observe both the challenges and rewards for the students. For example, the authors hold a telephone conference meeting to discuss the project following the grading period each year. They note challenges and successes. One member of the team takes notes to share with the other faculty members, who review them and contribute further. These notes form the basis for reflection about the design of the following year’s project. COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES As is evident throughout this chapter, communication is an essential skill when designing and facilitating virtual team projects. Faculty designing virtual teams are involved in three communication relationships: communication with students, facilitation of communication among students, and communication with faculty partners. Communicating with Students It is important to be as clear and consistent as possible in all communications with students. So that they can participate effectively from the outset, faculty need to communicate several pieces of information to students, as follows: • Both their “local” and “virtual” teammates’ names and contact information are essential details to supply to enable teammates to contact one another initially. • Faculty partners need to agree on project start and end dates and key project milestones in advance of announcing the project. They need to be sure that they are providing exactly the same details to students at each participating university.

140

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

• Students will likely have questions about the communication strategies expected of them when communicating with their teammates and with faculty members. They will want to know details such as how they should initiate communication, the frequency of communication expected, and the technologies they should or may use. In addition to providing clear, consistent and agreed upon information at the start of the project, faculty members need to keep lines of communication with students open throughout the duration of the assignment. It may be helpful to clarify how students should communicate with them (e.g., only by email, or only through the VLE). Enabling and Encouraging Communication among Students Ultimately, students must take responsibility for collaborating with their teammates during a virtual team project. According to Bergiel et al. (2008, p. 102), “Virtual team members must learn to excel as active communicators. The success of the team depends on the ability of team members to exchange information in face of the challenge of time and place.” It is the role of faculty members to prepare students to collaborate effectively. Faculty members should consider the types of collaboration they expect, the potential impact of cultural differences, and the means by which they facilitate communication using ICTs. During the authors’ first collaborations, they required some synchronous student communication, including videoconferences at the start and end of each project cycle. This element required them to synchronize class timetables, which was possible despite the five-hour time difference. Irish classes were scheduled in the afternoons, and U.S. classes in the mornings. Since the addition of a third partner, and because more courses now run online, class videoconferences are no longer feasible or a requirement. Students still need to communicate synchronously, but they do not have to do so during class times, nor through a class videoconference. An understanding of intercultural communication can help participants in global virtual teams to collaborate more effectively. Features of culture difference such as language barriers and the collective or individual orientation of group members can impact on the success of a virtual team (Daim et al., 2012). Students should spend a week at the start of the project getting to know one another and finding out about one another’s lives. This phase helps students to develop empathy, trust, and cultural understanding and may help to prevent conflict. In order to facilitate communication using ICTs, faculty may choose to act as “technology stewards” (Wenger et al., 2009, p. 25) for student virtual teams by “selecting and configuring the technology, as well as supporting its use” (p. 25). For example, each year the authors create individual sites for each team on the virtual learning environment (VLE) of the University of Limerick (UL). This VLE provides several communication tools within a single platform. Each team site is open only to members of that team and faculty members from each institution. If students elect not to use the VLE for collaboration, they may use an alternative

Best Practices for Faculty Conducting Virtual Team Projects •

141

tool or range of tools, but they must give the authors access to that alternative. The UL faculty take responsibility for the technology stewardship. Regardless of how technology is adopted and supported, it is essential that faculty can respond to queries and help to alleviate conflict if it arises, and that they have a record of each team’s communications. Chapter 4 discusses technology choices for virtual teams in more detail. Communicating with Faculty Partners Faculty members need to recognize that they are part of a virtual team too, and to adjust their communication strategies accordingly. Walther and Bunz (2005, p. 834) offer some rules for communication that faculty members might consider in their communication with their collaboration partners, including the need to “overtly acknowledge that you have read one another’s messages” and to “be explicit about what you are thinking and doing.” Inferences that can be made in face-to-face communication are impossible or at least less likely in virtual communication. Faculty members must work to keep their own collaboration partnership active. In the authors’ projects, all faculty involved participate in at least one telephone conference call at the start and end of each project. Before a project begins, partners need to discuss the parameters of the project. When the project ends, they need to review how it progressed, both to note any successes and to agree on changes necessary for future projects. A record of communications from year to year helps them to improve subsequent versions of the project. In addition to virtual meetings, if faculty members collaborate over several years, they should aim to meet face-to-face where possible. The authors have met at conferences and research meetings. These face-to-face meetings help to reinforce their enthusiasm and their commitment to working together and enable them to progress their collaborative teaching and research plans. GATHERING AND ANALYZING RESEARCH DATA If research is a goal of the faculty partners designing the virtual team project, they should identify relevant potential details at the outset, including research themes, research methods, research questions, data sources, analytical strategies, limitations, and ethical issues. Common themes in the literature on virtual teams include those discussed in earlier chapters of this book: communication skills, trust, intercultural communication, technology use, and leadership. Virtual team research methods often involve surveying or interviewing participants, mining existing data sources, or gathering case study data (e.g., records of team collaboration or reflections on the virtual team process). The kinds of data faculty gather and how they gather those data depend on research methods and questions. The authors have gathered the following types of data in their research:

142

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

• Surveys: Following their first virtual team project, the authors surveyed participants before and after their participation. The survey included openand closed-ended questions about prior experience in teams and virtual teams, and perceptions of the experience. • Online records of team collaboration: Students either collaborate using the UL VLE or share access to an alternative collaboration tool with faculty members. Students agree at the outset to share their text-based collaboration.2 • Assignment deliverables: The work produced by teams can be a source of data about their performance and potentially also their perceptions of the virtual team experience (e.g., where students maintain reflective blogs or diaries as part of the exercise). Analytical strategies outlined in the literature include grounded theory, content analysis, and statistical analysis of quantitative data. Most universities now require faculty to apply for ethical approval before conducting research involving people; faculty members at each participating institution will likely need to apply for approval from their institutional research board before the project begins. Conducting research on student team projects is a valuable exercise for many reasons, not least for the opportunities it affords faculty to better understand and reflect on their students’ work processes, perceptions, and performances within virtual teams. SUMMARY The process of organizing a virtual team project is complex, from selecting courses, collaborating institutions, and faculty partners, through designing and rolling out the project, to final evaluation and review. Successful virtual team projects need to be planned well in advance, and faculty partners need to anticipate questions, challenges, and solutions during the planning phases. They need to consider ways to facilitate virtual team collaboration, including which technologies to provide, and to what extent to support technologies. Since institutions differ in many administrative respects, faculty may have to negotiate institutional differences while preparing students for the challenges of intercultural collaboration. The importance of clear communication is impossible to overstate: communication among faculty, between faculty and students, and within student teams. NOTES 1. 2.

This conference is now known as IEEE ProComm. The authors do not require access to audio or video collaboration.

CHAPTER 9

UNDERSTANDING VIRTUAL TEAMS AS COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE

When a team is up and running for a period and is truly operating like a team, issues are rare and usually relatively minor. The key thing is ensuring that every team member feels that sense of belonging to a common purpose; supports others in that effort and knows that they can reach out to their teammates if necessary. —Senior Manager of the Technical Communications Program at a multinational company INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses how virtual teams can function as communities of practice to enhance knowledge sharing and knowledge creation. It describes the related concept of communities of inquiry and outlines why communities of inquiry are relevant to virtual team research. It further discusses the role of virtual teams in Virtual Teams in Higher Education: A Handbook for Students and Teachers, pages 143–156. Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing 143 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

144

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

preparing students for the challenges of global citizenship. Finally, this chapter discusses the challenges and benefits of e-learning. COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE A community of practice is a group of people who work or study together and who have learned how to understand the tasks they are implicitly and explicitly required to do in a work or educational setting: their practice. The community of practice model has four interdependent components: community, practice, identity, and meaning, and has as central concepts participation and reification. Wenger (1998, p. 59) defines reification in the context of communities of practice in the following way: “A certain understanding is given form. This form then becomes a focus for the negotiation of meaning, as people use the law to argue a point, use the procedure to know what to do, or use the tool to perform an action.” Reification thus refers to the specific ways that tasks are understood within the community. Examining virtual team structures through the community of practice framework emphasizes individual and community identity and how these are formed and informed by participation and reification. Wenger and others (Chaiklin & Lave 1996; Lave & Wenger 1991; Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002) discuss the concept of practice from a community perspective: what it means to do a particular task or set of tasks, to identify with one’s work or study community, and, moreover, the social nature of practice. As Barton and Tusting explain, communities of practice permeate work, social, and educational settings: “The starting point for the idea of a community of practice is that people typically come together in groupings to carry out activities in everyday life, in the workplace and in education” (Barton & Tusting, 2005, pp. 1–2). Virtual teams are communities of practice in the sense that members operate together to complete tasks, in either work or educational settings. Wenger et al. (2002, p. 137) note that, within a virtual team, “communities of practice can create a deep sense of organizational belonging independent of location and dayto-day job responsibilities.” The next section outlines some of the features of a community of practice and notes the relevance of these features to virtual teams. Features of Communities of Practice Practice includes both explicit symbols of a type of work, “the language, tools, documents, images, symbols, well-defined roles, specified criteria, codified procedures, regulations, and contracts” (Wenger, 1998, p. 47), and it also embodies “all the implicit relations, tacit conventions, subtle cues, untold rules of thumb, recognizable intuitions, specific perceptions, well-tuned sensitivities, embodied understandings, underlying assumptions, and shared world views” (p. 47).

Understanding Virtual Teams as Communities of Practice • 145

Within work or student teams, explicit symbols include the assignment, its requirements, templates, collaboration tools, meeting minutes, shared terminology, roles of team members, and a variety of team- and assignment-specific details. In a community of practice, three dimensions of practice signify the development of a community: mutual engagement, a joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire. Mutual engagement refers to complementary activities of members that are necessary to complete tasks; members are working together on different aspects of a task to achieve a goal. Within a student virtual team, for example, team members are mutually engaged in the achievement of project goals. Joint enterprise refers to the tasks that need to be accomplished for the practice to be considered successful. Accountability is a central component of joint enterprise. Wenger observes that team members need to be take responsibility for: what matters and what does not, what is important and why it is important, what to do and not to do, what to pay attention to and what to ignore, what to talk about and what to leave unsaid, what to justify and what to take for granted, what to display and what to withhold, when actions and artifacts are good enough and when they need improvement or refinement! (1998, p. 81)

In the early stages of a virtual team project, members make decisions about the tasks that matter, those that do not matter, and how to go about accomplishing the tasks for a successful outcome. Shared repertoires depend on a history of working together, where words, routines, and activities are common to the community. Shared repertoires also depend on ambiguity to an extent, to make the practice negotiable. Depending on circumstances, tasks, and changing community membership, the repertoire may need to change over time. Within a virtual team, aspects of communication and collaboration (e.g., meeting times, tools, and routines) become shared repertoires. A community of practice does not have to be labelled as such to exist, as long as mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoires do exist. In addition to the three fundamental characteristics, Wenger (1998) offers a more extensive list of signifiers of a community of practice: • • • • • • • • • •

“Sustained mutual relationships – harmonious or conflictual Shared ways of engaging in doing things together The rapid flow of information and propagation of innovation Absence of introductory preambles, as if conversations and interactions were merely the continuation of an ongoing process Very quick setup of a problem to be discussed Substantial overlap of participants’ descriptions of who belongs Knowing what others know, what they can do, and how they can contribute to an enterprise Mutually defining identities The ability to assess the appropriateness of actions and products Specific tools, representations, and other artefacts

146 • • • •

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION Local lore, shared stories, inside jokes, knowing laughter Jargon and shortcuts to communication, as well as the ease of producing new ones Certain styles recognized as displaying membership A shared discourse reflecting a certain perspective on the world.” (pp. 125–126)

While not all of these traits will be exhibited by all communities, the three central characteristics, mutual engagement, shared repertoires, and joint enterprise, are common to all (Holmes & Meyerhoff, 1999). Within a virtual team setting, many of these signifiers, such as tools, shared discourse, flow of information, and shared ways of engaging, are essential for a successful outcome. The next section highlights benefits of communities of practice, with a focus on how these benefits are relevant for virtual teams. Benefits of Communities of Practice Workers view their community of practice as a stable element in a constantly changing work environment. Despite constant change, both the community and the organization need continuity and a sense of stability, and most practices balance on the thread of tension between continuity and instability. As Wenger notes (1998, pp. 94–95): “This combination of discontinuity and continuity creates a dynamic equilibrium that can be construed, by participants and by the encompassing institutions, as stable and as the same practice.” For new virtual team members, the community of practice model helps to initiate them into the team. Lave and Wenger (1991) use the term “legitimate peripheral participation” to describe how new hires are initiated into practice from the periphery in a kind of occupational socialization process. In the same way, new team members can learn from more experienced peers in a virtual team. The concept of “generations” reflects the different levels of experience among new and longer-serving employees. Generations also create and foster a sense of stability which enables employees to handle change. Any practice (Wenger uses claims processing as his example) changes constantly, due to changes in information technology, work processes, legislation, organizational requirements, personnel, and a variety of additional, sometimes core and sometimes peripheral, influences. Learning is essential, therefore, for the survival of practice, but learning is sometimes an implicit, rather than explicit, goal. Many virtual teams are temporary structures, but the community of practice model recommends some continuity to enable newcomers to join the community by participating in its practice. Communities of practice enable workers and learners to make sense of their practice. According to Wenger (1998, p. 48), “We all have our own theories and ways of understanding the world, and our communities of practice are places where we develop, negotiate, and share them.” Gray (2004) argues that, through sharing knowledge with one another, members of a community of practice make

Understanding Virtual Teams as Communities of Practice • 147

sense of their task and may develop a stronger sense of identity: “[P]eople learn the intricacies of their job, explore the meaning of their work, construct an image of the organization, and develop a sense of professional self” (p. 23). Identity development is an important but complex process in virtual teams. Identity and social identity theory are discussed in Chapters 3 and 6. Communities are usually seen in a positive light. The term “community” suggests helpfulness, friendship, partnership, and general accord. Although the literature mostly highlights positive roles played by communities of practice, there are some acknowledged shortcomings to this model; these shortcomings are explored in the next section. Critiques of Communities of Practice Barton and Hamilton (1998, p. 16) observe that the “cosy and beguiling” word “community” can mask “closely structured local social relations [that] can also be oppressive, disruptive or resistant to individuals’ needs.” Wenger et al. (2002) warn of several potential pitfalls with this framework. Excessive pride in the community can lead to monopolization of knowledge: The community is seen as the exclusive domain of a body of knowledge. Excessive pride can also lead to arrogance. Members believe the community’s current level of knowledge is the state of the art and nothing new needs to be learned. Narcissism and a focus on individual, rather than team or business, needs can result. Wenger et al. (2002) argue that communities of practice can also be marginalized when “they fail to assert the legitimacy of their domain or its importance to other constituencies” (p. 143). This point is an important one to consider in the context of virtual teams, which are temporary structures and thus may need to assert their status and legitimacy. Communities, like all groups, are also prone to internal factions and cliques. Failure to foster initial community spirit can lead to group-think, where standing out is frowned upon. Group-think can lead to overdependence on one or a small number of charismatic leaders and to disconnection between a core group and other members. Harris and Shelswell (2005, p. 168) contend that “[c]ommunities are defined as much by whom and what they exclude as by what they contain; at times an act of exclusion may be essential to their continued cohesion,” and conflicts can occur around a potential member’s suitability and competence to participate. This situation can be problematic in virtual teams, where members do not meet face-to-face and trust is difficult to establish and essential for the team to function. Chapter 3, Challenges in Developing and Maintaining Trust, discusses how trust can be established and fostered within a virtual team. Killingsworth (1992) warns that communities are not naturally occurring, but socially constructed, and never free of ideological influence. The sense of ideological and power struggles playing out within a community of practice is also discussed by Harris and Shelswell (2005). Virtual teams are socially constructed,

148

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

and thus team leaders may need to explore ways to ensure that ideological or power struggles can be moderated (See Chapter 5). In the volume Beyond Communities of Practice (Barton & Tusting, 2005), several contributors see language use as fundamental to how communities of practice function, and argue that this concept has not received sufficient space in Wenger’s texts. Tusting, Myers, and Creese, in separate chapters, describe the centrality of language in meaning making, and argue that analyzing language use is vital to understanding the dynamics and interactions at play within a community of practice. The uses of language, and mutual understanding of language, are important in virtual teams, where members may not share a common mother tongue. Even when team members have a common first language, language usage differs from culture to culture. Thus, team leaders need to ensure that language use and communication patterns are as explicit as possible. Wenger (1998) agrees with some of the critiques that this section highlights. Communities of practice, he notes, are not always harmonious and do not always foster creativity. They are not “intrinsically beneficial or harmful” (p. 85). He also observes that members of a community of practice are not a homogeneous group: “They are different from one another and have different personal aspirations and problems” (p. 75). He argues, however, that communities of practice can be transformative forces if conflict is handled effectively. In virtual teams, conflict is a common issue. Misunderstandings arise when team members do not meet face-toface. Chapters 3 and 5 discuss conflict and some ways to direct teams away from conflictual situations and towards the “transformative” experiences that Wenger identifies. The next section explores the features of a type of community of practice that develops in educational settings: the community of inquiry. KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND COMMUNITIES OF INQUIRY Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) define communities of inquiry (CoIs) within higher education as those that depend on computer-mediated communication rather than face-to-face communication. Therefore, this model can support learning within a virtual team where members communicate using ICTs. The Community of Inquiry Framework The CoI framework has three central components that interact with one another: social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence. Social presence (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 89) is “the ability of participants in the Community of Inquiry to project their personal characteristics into the community, thereby presenting themselves to the other participants as ‘real people.’” According to the CoI framework, social presence is characterized by open communication, group cohesion, and affective expression and is exemplified by collaboration, risk-free expression, and use of emoticons.

Understanding Virtual Teams as Communities of Practice • 149

Within a virtual team, cognitive presence can be fostered through socioemotional communication. According to Garrison et al. (2007, p. 69), “Understanding the role of social presence is essential in creating a community of inquiry and in designing, facilitating, and directing higher-order learning. This is not a simple one-off task. Balancing socioemotional interaction, building group cohesion and facilitating and modeling respectful critical discourse is essential for productive inquiry.” Chapter 3, Challenges in Developing and Maintaining Trust, discusses socioemotional communication and the development of trust within virtual teams. Cognitive presence (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 89) is “the extent to which the participants in any particular configuration of a community of inquiry are able to construct meaning through sustained communication.” According to the CoI framework, cognitive presence is characterized by members exploring a question, topic, or task and creating a shared understanding of the problem, and it is exemplified by members sharing a “sense of puzzlement” (p. 89) initially, which is eventually resolved through sharing information and “connecting ideas” (p. 89). Akyol and Garrison (2011) describe how communities of inquiry foster metacognition among participants. They define metacognition as “an awareness and ability for learners to take responsibility and control to construct meaning and confirm knowledge” (p. 183). Within a virtual team, cognitive presence develops through goal-oriented communication. When team members work together on a task or several tasks to complete an assignment, they share information and come to a common understanding of the problem and arrive at potential solutions. Teaching presence (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 90) is “the design of the educational experience” and its facilitation. According to the CoI framework, teaching presence is characterized by a well-designed and organized project that is effectively facilitated, and it is exemplified by teachers setting the agenda, responding to team members, helping team members to reach consensus, and helping to focus discussions. Within a virtual team, teaching presence develops through clear guidelines about the project requirements, facilitation of the communication infrastructure, and responsiveness to queries about the project. In student virtual teams, teachers are responsible for teaching presence, whereas in the workplace, a manager will facilitate communication and provide guidelines. Garrison et al. (2000) note that CoIs use lean rather than rich communication media, with consequent advantages as well as disadvantages (See Chapter 3). Virtual team members can choose communication strategies that support their tasks, circumstances, or communication preferences. This flexibility is not possible to the same degree in face-to-face teams. Virtual teams include members who cannot participate at a set time. Research by Ardichvili, Page, and Wentling (2003) and Oringderff (2004) suggests that the need for asynchronous communication can represent an advantage over faceto-face communication, giving participants time for reflection (Oringderff 2004;

150

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Salmon 2013) and careful, critical thinking (Garrison et al., 2000). The reflective nature of written communication encourages discipline and rigor, which might be absent in synchronous discussions or face-to-face meetings. As Berry (2011, p. 12) explains: “[B]ecause the computer-mediated environment is not time or location bound it can enable reflective and substantive feedback, which some team members may appreciate even more so than the immediate although perhaps less substantive feedback common in face-to-face communication.” Factors Influencing the Success of a Community of Inquiry Two factors that have a significant impact on the effectiveness of a community of inquiry are how the community uses technology and how motivated community members are to share information. Students must be motivated to take responsibility for their learning within a CoI. Akyol and Garrison (2011) state that “the basic premise of a CoI is that learner agency is shared. Shared agency is important for students to monitor and regulate their learning in a community of inquiry” (p. 189). Wenger, White, and Smith (2009) explore how communities interact with technology to share knowledge, a topic of importance to virtual team leaders and members, as well as teachers intending to set up virtual teams in the classroom. They begin by outlining the history of communities using technology, from post and telephone networks, through early software programs that facilitated online discussion, to social networks. They observe that social networking platforms are designed to enable users to “convene communities to learn and collaborate around the world, around the clock, expanding the ease and reach of peer-to-peer interactions” (Wenger et al., 2009, p. 19). This quote captures the essence of how virtual teams can exploit technology to share knowledge in ways that would previously have been unimaginable. The topic of technology for virtual teams is discussed in detail in Chapter 4. Ardichvili et al. (2003, p. 64) observe that “one of the critical factors determining a virtual community’s success is its members’ motivation to actively participate in community knowledge generation and sharing activities.” Findings from their study of employees’ contributions to Caterpillar Corporation’s virtual communities show that employees are motivated to share knowledge in virtual communities for altruistic reasons, “moral obligation and community interest,” rather than “a narrow self-interest”( p. 69) and a desire to “establish themselves as experts” (p. 69). However, they also note significant barriers to participation, including fear of not having sufficient expertise to post information or fear that the post might not be relevant. Their findings also show that participants may be concerned about revealing proprietary or highly confidential information. An additional potential deterrent to participation in online discussions is lack of trust (Chiu, Hsu, & Wang, 2006). The next section of this chapter outlines a model that helps instructors to address some of these barriers to participation in online communities.

Understanding Virtual Teams as Communities of Practice • 151

The Five-Stage Model of Learning Salmon’s (2011) five-stage model of learning approaches online learning from the perspective of how teachers (e-moderators) can help learners to learn. This model, like the CoI model, sees collaboration as central to knowledge construction. In this sense, it is an effective training tool for teachers coming to grips with how to apply e-learning technologies to a virtual team project, where participants benefit from going through all the stages. The stages of the model are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Access and motivation, where learners are introduced to the collaboration system and encouraged to participate Online socialization, where activities encourage learners to get to know one another Information exchange, where learners begin to use technology to share and access materials and ideas Knowledge construction, where, through various activities and discussions, learners begin to understand and interpret content Development, where learners produce and create content for assessment in a collaborative and mutually supportive environment

All of these stages are familiar to virtual team organizers and participants, and map to the stages involved in setting up and managing virtual teams. In virtual teams, participants begin by learning to use the communication tools, they connect with one another and use socioemotional communication strategies (See Chapter 3) to get to know one another and to develop trust, they begin to share and then discuss ideas, and finally they produce work together. Salmon presents the concept of e-tivities as core to the five-stage approach. E-tivities are “frameworks for enabling active and participative online learning by individuals and groups” (Salmon, 2013, p. 5). This definition demonstrates the applicability of the five-stage model and of e-tivities to teachers developing virtual team projects. Inherent in the design of virtual teams is the engagement of students in participative learning experiences that take place primarily in online environments. The next section examines the concept of global citizenship, where students learn to recognize their place within the global community. GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP St. Amant (2008, p. 1) describes how globalization intensified due to changes in technology and economics: “Online media, driven by the Internet and the World Wide Web, suddenly allowed persons from an array of nations to communicate easily and almost instantaneously. As a result, perceptions about space and time— particularly those related to workplace interactions—began to change” (p. 1). He goes on to describe how these changes led to the emergence of virtual teams: “[T]

152

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

he notion of the office as a physical structure with rooms and cubicles gave way to virtual workplaces in which internationally dispersed workers could collaborate on projects in real time” (pp. 1–2). This increase in global workplaces brings about a consequent and parallel need among students and workers to develop skills to operate in globalized environments. Globalization has altered every aspect of life, including how we work, collaborate, and study. A challenge for teachers is to help prepare students to work in dispersed workplaces and to respond to the demands of being a citizen within a globalized society. Hobbs and Chernotsky (2007) outline key skills that students need to develop to become global citizens: • • • •

An awareness of “the world’s complexity and interdependence” (p. 2) An appreciation of difference The “ability to communicate across cultures” (p. 2) An awareness of how difficult it is to change other people’s attitudes

Virtual team participation enables students to develop all of these skills. Students who participate in projects that provide them with an opportunity to interact with other cultures are better prepared for the challenges of global citizenship than those who do not (St. Amant, 2008). Sadri and Flammia (2009) discuss strategies that help to prepare students to function as global citizens. Their guidelines for faculty seeking to develop global citizenship skills among students include: • • • •

Guiding students to reflect on their personal situations, communities, skills Using technologies to develop projects Using public figures to inspire students to participate in global citizenship Giving students sufficient background information to enable them to understand the issues • Enabling students to work in groups • Enabling students to work with other cultures They conclude that, although such projects are challenging to develop, they are worthwhile for faculty and students (Sadri & Flammia, 2009). Virtual team projects, for example, can demonstrate to students ways in which their interests and experiences are both similar to and different from their teammates’ experiences and interests. Students learn how to communicate with their peers, and through experiences of conflict within the team, they can also learn to appreciate that changing their own and teammates’ attitudes is a complex process. Virtual teams are facilitated primarily through technology. Additional e-learning theories are also relevant for virtual teams. The next section examines benefits and challenges of e-learning and the relevance of e-learning theory to virtual teams.

Understanding Virtual Teams as Communities of Practice • 153

BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF E-LEARNING During the past few decades, the rise in relatively affordable computing technology has created such educational innovations as synchronous and asynchronous online collaboration and virtual learning environments. As student demographics change and technology capacity expands, e-learning is becoming an increasingly used paradigm for teaching and learning. Many of the challenges and benefits of e-learning have crossover benefits for the formation, maintenance, and success of virtual teams, since many of the structures and strategies that apply to e-learning also relate to virtual teams. This section outlines the key benefits of e-learning approaches and explores some challenges. Benefits of E-Learning Several benefits of e-learning have been noted by researchers, organizations, teachers, and students. One of the key advantages of e-learning is the increased flexibility for students and teachers. Students can now access learning materials any time and in any location. They can also collaborate with classmates online using synchronous and asynchronous tools. For teachers, the range of materials, activities, and outcomes possible is also expanded. This advantage resonates for faculty designing virtual team projects, since such projects would be impossible to set up without the technologies afforded by e-learning, such as discussion forums, blogs, wikis, and videoconferencing (Wenger et al., 2009). The archive of learning materials and participation that is available in online platforms facilitates revision and reflection (See Communities of Inquiry). Salmon (2013, p. 35) observes that “results of participants’ work on e-tivities are available for revisiting and reconsidering in a way that cannot happen with more transient verbal conversation, or classroom-based tutorials.” In a virtual team, meetings are likewise more likely to be better documented, for example, through a social media trail, than face-to-face meetings. This record also facilitates collaboration and co-operation within virtual teams. A related advantage of e-learning is that students develop self-regulation skills as they take more responsibility for their learning. LaPointe (2007) explains that in socioconstructivist environments where students build knowledge through collaboration, they direct their own learning. They do so by “taking the responsibility to listen to others with respect, draw others out, build on one another’s ideas, challenge each other to support opinions, review beliefs, share resources, accept responsibility to make sense out of the experience for the individual learner as well as help others construct meaning for themselves” (LaPointe, 2007, p. 89). Students learn, through using online tools to access materials anytime and in any location, how to become autonomous and self-reliant. Yeow and Martin (2013) indicate that self-regulation may improve leadership skills, a topic discussed further in Chapter 5. Through working in virtual teams, students also increase their confidence about working with members of other cultures and transitioning to the

154

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

workplace, where virtual team communication is both commonplace and necessary. Distance learning programs have the obvious advantage of removing geographical barriers and reducing transportation requirements. In North America and Australia, distance learning solutions have been used in geographically expansive regions. Geith and Vignare (2008) explain, “One of the key benefits of online learning is that it can be offered free of time and geographic constraints, thereby increasing the accessibility of higher education” (p. 7). This benefit is of course one of the key advantages of virtual teams in the workplace. Wenger et al. (2002) note that “[t]o be truly global—and competitive—companies need to be able to attract expertise, no matter where it is located in the world” (p. 136). Atherton and Giurco (2011) suggest that increasing and exploiting the use of videoconferencing and other technologies, thus reducing the need for students to travel to campus, is one means of augmenting campus sustainability. This benefit extends to virtual team projects, which would be operationally expensive or impossible to organize face-to-face. Online programs or components have additional environmental benefits: They “reduce carbon emissions and paper waste by their very nature” (Sandeen, 2009, p. 98). Societal factors that make face-to-face learning difficult or even dangerous further underscore the potential uses of online solutions. For example, phenomena such as extreme weather conditions and health scares highlight the need to examine alternative educational delivery methods. Huang and Zhou report on blended learning solutions developed in China following the SARS epidemic: [D]ue to the SARS epidemic in China, especially in Beijing in the first half of 2003, personal movement and communication were badly interrupted; even normal faceto-face communication was considered dangerous. Therefore, when normal classroom instruction was halted, the idea of e-learning became popular since it could achieve similar objectives without face-to-face communication. (2005, p. 297)

Meyer and Wilson (2011) report on a contingency plan, called the Sloan Semester, put in place to virtually educate students who were displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. Again, this benefit carries over for industry where virtual teaming enables collaboration even when travel is logistically impossible. These many advantages notwithstanding, there are also some challenges associated with learning online, as outlined in the next section. Challenges of E-learning Two dynamics appear to pose the most challenges for learners in online environments: reduced sense of community and problems with tools/system functionality. In student virtual teams, these issues also cause difficulties for participants. Liaw (2008) outlines factors that influence the effectiveness of online content, including learner characteristics (e.g., capacity for self-regulation) and the quality of the instructional system. Song, Singleton, Hill, and Koh (2004) describe a study

Understanding Virtual Teams as Communities of Practice • 155

that identified key benefits and challenges for students of online courses. The most significant difficulties learners faced were the perceived lack of community in the online environment and technical problems that hindered their progress. Salmon (2013) agrees that online learners can feel frustrated by systems and can feel isolated from a learning community in poorly designed online environments. It is up to teachers to design systems that reduce anxiety and frustration among learners, but for teachers too, e-learning delivery can be challenging. Grant and Cheon (2007) note that teachers need to be trained in how to use e-learning technologies effectively. The learning curve can be very steep indeed, particularly for older teachers who have not grown up with ubiquitous computing. Prensky’s (2001) work on digital natives (those who have grown up with internet technologies) compared to digital immigrants (those who are learning to use these technologies in adulthood) highlights the sharp differences in computer literacy between teachers and students. If teachers are not trained in using technology, they may miss opportunities to create effective interactions with students in digital spaces. Where teachers are planning to set up virtual teams, an understanding of the potential of technology to support communication is essential. Support and training can increase teachers’ ability to set up and maintain an effective virtual space. A related issue is how teachers who are familiar with the face-to-face teaching and learning environment adapt their materials and delivery approaches to the new medium. Simply reusing traditional teaching materials and approaches in an online environment is not effective (Bower, 2011). Teachers who are setting up a virtual team project for the first time need to recognize that the project will be different from face-to-face team projects. Bower lists several skills teachers require, including the ability to use technology, to communicate, to think critically, to problem solve, and to work in an ethical manner online. Students in virtual teams are likely to need significantly more support that traditional teams. The problems that typically arise in team situations are likely to be amplified in a virtual team, where opportunities for conflict resolution through rich communication media (See Chapter 3) are less likely to exist. The spontaneity of face-to-face encounters may be lost within an online teaching and learning environment, and there may be less scope for “moments of liveliness” (Whithaus & Neff, 2006, p. 446). Teachers in online spaces and on virtual teams may have to work harder to engage students in interactions that feel lively and spontaneous. Many online environments and virtual learning environments (VLEs) offer synchronous communication tools, which may provide opportunities for more spontaneous interactions. A related difficulty, and one that is significant for virtual teams, is how to elicit feedback from students. Wang and Hsu (2008) report that feedback presents a challenge in online environments. Teachers who meet students face-to-face are more likely to know about problems, difficulties, or conflicts within a project team. Unless a virtual team member chooses to disclose a problem, teachers have no way of knowing its extent, or even of its existence in some cases. This chal-

156

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

lenge can lead to great distress for team members and can ultimately lead to conflict. Many of the challenges outlined in this section can be overcome through: • Awareness of the potential difficulties that communicating and learning through technology, and primarily in virtual environments, can cause for students • Careful planning and design of projects, with clear goals and guidelines for students • Mindfulness on the part of teachers and students through all stages of the project • Development of the skills outlined in this and other chapters: communication, technology, and intercultural collaboration skills SUMMARY Many theories of learning and e-learning are relevant for virtual teams. The communities of practice framework emphasizes the importance of learning about practice through membership of a community, and the inter-linkages between work, education and identity. Communities of inquiry are more commonly discussed within higher education as communities that foster information exchange and knowledge construction through computer-mediated communication. The five-stage model of learning design offers a framework for the design of online learning environments that helps to address challenges of learning in a community. These models serve as frameworks for the design of virtual team projects. Through membership of virtual teams, students also learn global citizenship skills which will serve them in their future careers and lives, as people and corporations become increasingly inter-connected through technology. A theme running throughout this chapter is that collaboration leads to knowledge construction. A second theme is that online learning tools and techniques, through their flexibility and scalability, support the design and development of virtual team projects. Nevertheless, teachers and students need to develop many skills in order to work effectively in virtual teams to collaborate.

REFERENCES

Adler, N. J. (1983). Cross-cultural management: Issues to be faced. International Studies of Management & Organization, 13(1/2), 7–45. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183–190. Albrecht, T. L., & Ropp, V. A. (1984). Communicating about innovation in networks of three US organizations. Journal of Communication, 34(3), 78–91. Alexander, P. M. (2006). Virtual teamwork in very large undergraduate classes. Computers & Education, 47(2), 127–147. Anawati, D., & Craig, A. (2006). Behavioral adaptation within cross-cultural virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49(1), 44–56. Andrews, D., & Starke-Meyerring, D. (2005, August). Making connections: An intercultural virtual team project in professional communication. Paper presented at the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, Limerick, Ireland. Ang, S., & Inkpen, A. C. (2008). Cultural intelligence and offshore outsourcing success: A framework of firm-level intercultural capability. Decision Sciences, 39(3), 337–358. Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L., (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition, distinctiveness, and nomological network. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 3–15). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 100–123. Virtual Teams in Higher Education: A Handbook for Students and Teachers, pages 157–174. Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing 157 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

158

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64–77. Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57(10), 774. Atherton, A., & Giurco, D. (2011). Campus sustainability: Climate change, transport and paper reduction. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(3), 269–279. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 72(4), 441–462. Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Baker, B. (2014). E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 105–131. Ayoko, O. B., Konrad, A. M., & Boyle, M. V. (2012). Online work: Managing conflict and emotions for performance in virtual teams. European Management Journal, 30(2), 156–174. Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London, UK: Routledge. Barton, D., & Tusting, K. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond communities of practice: Language, power, and social context. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. Baskerville, R., & Nandhakumar, J. (2007). Activating and perpetuating virtual teams: Now that we’re mobile, where do we go? IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50(1), 17–34. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 14–49. Bennett, M. J. (2004). Becoming interculturally competent. In J. S. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 62–77). Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation. Bennett, M. J. (2013). Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Paradigms, principles, and practices. Boston, MA: Intercultural Press. Beranek, P. M. (2000). The impacts of relational and trust development training on virtual teams: An exploratory investigation. In R. H. Sprague (Ed.), Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Maui, Hawaii (1–10). IEEE Computer Society Press. Bergiel, B. J., Bergiel, E. B., & Balsmeier, P. W. (2008). Nature of virtual teams: a summary of their advantages and disadvantages. Management Research News, 31(2), 99–110. Berry, G. R. (2011). Enhancing effectiveness on virtual teams: Understanding why traditional team skills are insufficient. Journal of Business Communication, 48(2), 186–206. Bessière, K., Ellis, J., & Kellogg, W. (2009, April). Acquiring a professional Second Life: Problems and prospects for the use of virtual worlds in business. Paper presented at the Twenty Seventh Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA. Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., Zanutto, E. L., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2009). Do workgroup faultlines help or hurt? A moderated model of faultlines, team identification, and group performance. Organization Science, 20(1), 35–50.

References •

159

Bond, M. H. (2002). Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede’s ecological analysis—A 20-year odyssey: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 73–77. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901–910. Boudreau, M. C., Loch, K. D., Robey, D., & Straud, D. (1998). Going global: Using information technology to advance the competitiveness of the virtual transnational organization. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(4), 120–128. Bower M. (2011). Synchronous collaboration competencies in web-conferencing environments—Their impact on the learning process. Distance Education, 32(1), 63–83. Brewer, P. E. (2010). Miscommunication in international virtual workplaces: A report on a multicase study. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53, 329–345. Burgoon, J. K., Buller D. B., & Woodall, W. G. (1996). Nonverbal communication: The unspoken dialogue. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education Burn, J., & Barnett, M. (1999). Communicating for advantage in the virtual organization. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42(4), 215–222. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cardon, P. W. (2008). A critique of Hall’s contexting model: A meta-analysis of literature on intercultural business and technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(4), 399–428. Chaiklin, S., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (1996). Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Chang, H. H., Chuang, S. S., & Chao, S. H. (2011). Determinants of cultural adaptation, communication quality, and trust in virtual teams’ performance. Total Quality Management, 22(3), 305–329. Chang, W. L., & Lee, C. Y. (2013). Virtual team e-leadership: The effects of leadership style and conflict management mode on the online learning performance of students in a business-planning course. British Journal of Education Technology, 44(6), 986–999. Chase, N. (1999). Learning to lead a virtual team. Quality, 38(9), 76. Chen, X. P., Liu, D., & Portnoy, R. (2012). A multilevel investigation of motivational cultural intelligence, organizational diversity climate, and cultural sales: Evidence from U.S. real estate firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 93–106. Cherbakov, L., Brunner, R., Lu, C., & Smart, R. (2009, May 29). Enable far-reaching enterprise collaboration with virtual spaces, Part 1: Introduction to the opportunities and technologies. Retrieved from http://download.boulder.ibm.com/ibmdl/pub/ software/dw/webservices/ws-virtualspaces/ws-virtualspaces-pdf.pdf Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872–1888. Chiu, Y. T., & Staples, D. S. (2013). Reducing faultlines in geographically dispersed teams: Self-disclosure and task elaboration. Small Group Research, 44(5), 498–531. Chua, R. Y., Morris, M. W., & Mor, S. (2012). Collaborating across cultures: Cultural metacognition and affect-based trust in creative collaboration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(2), 116–131.

160

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Clark, D. N., & Gibb, J. L. (2006). Virtual team learning: An introductory study team exercise. Journal of Management Education, 30(6), 765–787. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Cleary, Y., & Slattery, D. M. (2009, August). Virtual teams in higher education: Challenges and rewards for teachers and students. Paper presented at the AISHE-C 2009: Valuing Complexity Conference, NUI Maynooth, Ireland. Cogliser, C. C., Gardner, W. L., Gavin, M. B., & Broberg, J. C. (2012). Big five personality factors and leader emergence in virtual teams: Relationships with team trustworthiness, member performance contributions, and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 37(6), 752–784. Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2004). Building trust in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47(2), 95–104. Corporate culture. (n.d.). Encyclopedia of Business Terms. Inc.com. Retrieved from http:// www.inc.com/encyclopedia/corporate-culture.html Chang, C. M. (2011). New organization designs for promoting creativity: A case study of virtual teams with anonymity and structured interactions. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 28, 268–282. Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119– 161. Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346–371. Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2014). An embedded model of cultural adaptation in global teams. Organization Science, 25(4), 1056–1081. Creese, A. (2005). Mediating allegations of racism in a multiethnic London school: what speech communities and communities of practice can tell us about discourse and power. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language, power, and social context (pp. 55–76). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Daft, R. L. (1999). Leadership: Theory and practice. Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191– 233. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organization information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. Daim, T. U., Ha, A., Reutiman, S., Hughes, B., Pathak, U., Bynum, W., & Bhatla, A. (2012). Exploring the communication breakdown in global virtual teams. International Journal of Project Management, 30(2), 199–212. Dam-Jensen, H. D, & Henine, C. (2013). Writing and translation process research: Bridging the gap. Journal of Writing Research, 5(1), 89–101. Davis, D. D. (2004). The Tao of leadership in virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 33(1), 47–62. De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 628.

References •

161

DeJong, B. A., & Elfring, T. (2010). How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 535–549. DeRosa, D. M., Hantula, D. A., Kock, N., & D’Arcy, J. (2004). Trust and leadership in virtual teamwork: A media naturalness perspective. Human Resource Management, 43(2-3), 219–232. Dickey, M. H., McLure Wasko, M., Chudoba, J. M., & Thatcher, J. B. (2006). Do you know what I know? A shared understandings perspective on text-based communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(1), 66–87. Dolan, T. (1999). A dictionary of Hiberno English. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan Dolezalek, H. (2009). Virtual leaders. Training, 46(4), 40–42. Duarte, D. L., & Snyder, N. T. (2006). Mastering virtual teams: Strategies, tools, and techniques that succeed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dubé, L., & Paré, G. (2001). Global virtual teams. Communications of the ACM, 44(12), 71–73. DuBrin, A. J. (2003). Applying psychology: Individual and organizational effectiveness (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press. Eissa, G., Fox, C., Webster, B. D., & Kim J. (2012). A framework for leader effectiveness in virtual teams. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 9, 11–22. Ellemers, N., Haslam, S. A., Platow, M. J., & van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Social identity at work: Developments, debates, directions. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory of organizational practices (pp. 3–28). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro level of the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(4), 583–598. Fan, K. T., Chen, Y. H., Wang, C. W., & Chen, M. (2014). E-leadership effectiveness in virtual teams: Motivating language perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(3), 421–437. Ferrazzi, K. (2012, November 19). How to manage conflict in virtual teams. Harvard Business Review Blog. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2012/11/how-to-manage-conflictin-virt Flammia, M. (2014). Preparing students for the virtual workplace: Overcoming communication, management, technology, and cultural challenges. EdTechnology Ideas, 1(3). Retrieved from http://edtechnologyideas.com/ Flammia, M., Cleary, Y., & Slattery, D. M. (2007, September/October). Technology use and communication strategies of Irish and US students in virtual teams. Paper presented at the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, Seattle, Washington. Flammia, M., Cleary, Y., & Slattery, D. M. (2010). Leadership roles, socioemotional communication strategies, and technology use of Irish and US students in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53(2), 89–101. Furamo, K. & Pearson, J. M. (2006). An empirical investigation of how trust, cohesion, and performance vary in virtual and face-to-face teams. In A. Gul (Ed.), Proceedings

162

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Kauia, Hawaii (26c). IEEE Computer Society Press. Furst, S. A., Reeves, M., Rosen, B., & Blackburn, R. S. (2004). Managing the life cycle of virtual teams. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 6–20. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovido, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. New York, NY: The Psychology Press. Gallenkamp, J. V., Assmann, J. J., Drescher, M. A., Picot, A., & Welpe, I. M. (2010, January). Conflict, culture, and performance in virtual teams: Results from a cross-cultural study. Paper presented at the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Koloa, Kauai, HI, USA. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105. Garrison, G., Wakefield, R. L., Xu, X., & Kim, S. H. (2010). Globally distributed teams: The effect of diversity on trust, cohesion and individual performance. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 41(3), 101–125. Geith, C., & Vignare, K. (2008). Access to education with online learning and open educational resources: Can they close the gap? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(1), 1–22. Gersick, C. J., & Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47(1), 65–97. Gnecchi, M., Maylath, B., Mousten, B., Scarpa, F., & Vandepitte, S. (2011). Field convergence between technical writers and technical translators: Consequences for training institutions. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 54(2), 168–184. Goodman, N. (2012).Training for cultural competence. Industrial and Commercial Training, 44(1), 47–50. Grant, M., & Cheon, J. (2007). The value of using synchronous conferencing for instruction and students. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3), 211–226. Gratton, L., & Erickson, T. J. (2007, November). Eight ways to build collaborative teams. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 101–109. Gray, B. (2004). Informal learning in an online community of practice. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 20–35. Greenberg, P. S., Greenberg, R. H., & Antonucci, Y. L. (2007). Creating and sustaining trust in virtual teams. Business Horizons, 50(4), 325–333. Griffith, T. L., Sawyer, J. E., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Virtualness and knowledge in teams: Managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 265–287. Grosse, C. U. (2002). Managing communication within virtual intercultural teams. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(4), 22–38. Gudykunst, W. B. (1997). Cultural variability in communication. Communication Research, 24(4), 327–348. Hall, E. T. (1981). The silent language. New York, NY: Anchor/Doubleday. Hambley, L. A., O’Neill, T. A., & Kline, T. J. B. (2007).Virtual team leadership: Perspectives from the field. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 3(1), 40–64. Hansen, R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: Suggestions for improving team projects. Journal of Education for Business, 82(1), 11–19.

References •

163

Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, Vol. 3: The Interpersonal context (pp. 28–84). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hargie, O. (2006). The handbook of communication skills (3rd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled interpersonal communication: Research, theory and practice (5th ed.). London, UK: Routledge. Hargie, O., Saunders, C., & Dickson, D. (1985). Social skills in interpersonal communication. London, UK: Croom Helm. Harris, S. R., & Shelswell, N. (2005). Moving beyond communities of practice in adult basic education. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language, power, and social context (pp. 158–179). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hartley, P. (1999). Interpersonal communication (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.. Hennessy, J., & West, M. A. (1999). Intergroup behavior in organizations: A field test of social identity theory. Small Group Research, 30(3), 361–382. Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), 69–95. Higgs, M. J., & Morton, S. (2001). The alignment of organisational and national cultures with business strategy: A case study exploration. Henley Working Paper 01100. Henley-on-Thames, UK: Henley Management College. Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of synch: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14(6), 615–632. Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16, 290–307. Hobbs, H. H., & Chernotsky H. I. (2007, February). Preparing students for global citizenship. Paper presented at the American Political Science Conference, Charlotte, NC. Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 390–403. Hoegl, M., Ernst, H., & Proserpio, L. (2007). How teamwork matters more as team member dispersion increases. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(1), 156–165. Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435–449. The Hofstede Center. (2014). National Cultural Dimensions. Retrieved from http://geerthofstede.com/national-culture.html Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (n.d.). Personal Website. Retrieved from http://www.geerthofstede.com/research--vsm

164

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 286–316. Holmes, J., & Meyerhoff, M. (1999). The community of practice: Theories and methodologies in language and gender research. Language in Society, 28(2), 173–183. Hotho, S. (2008). Professional identity-product of structure, product of choice: Linking changing professional identity and changing professions. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(6), 721–742. Huang, R., Kahai, S., & Jestice, R. (2010). The contingent effects of leadership on team collaboration in virtual teams. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1098–1110. Huang, H., & Trauth, E. M. (2010). Identity and cross-cultural management in globally distributed information technology work. In M. Lacity, S. March, & F. Niederman, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Information Systems. AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2010_ submissions/148/ Huang, R., & Zhou, Y. (2005). Designing blended learning focused on knowledge category and learning activities: Case studies from Beijing Normal University. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 296–310). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing. Huang, W. W., Wei, K. K., Watson, R. T., & Tan, B. C. (2003). Supporting virtual teambuilding with a GSS: An empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems, 34(4), 359–367. Hunsaker, P. L., & Hunsaker, J. S. (2008). Virtual teams: A leader’s guide. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 14(1/2), 86–101. Iacono, C. S., & Weisband, S. (1997, January). Developing trust in virtual teams. Paper presented at the 13th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Wailea, HI. Iles, P., & Hayers, P. K. (1997). Managing diversity in transnational project teams: A tentative model and case study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12(2), 95–117. Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337–359. Janssens, M., & Brett, J. M. (2006). Cultural intelligence in global teams: A fusion model of collaboration. Group & Organization Management, 31, 124–153. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29–64. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4). Jawadi, N. (2013). E-leadership and trust management: Exploring the moderating effects of team virtuality. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction (IJTHI), 9(3), 18–35. Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282.

References •

165

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763. Johnson, S. D., Suriya, C., Yoon, S. W., Berrett, J. V., & La Fleur, J. (2002). Team development and group processes of virtual learning teams. Computers & Education, 39(4), 379–393. Joy-Matthews, J., & Gladstone, B. (2000). Extending the group: A strategy for virtual team formation. Industrial and Commercial Training, 32(1), 24–29. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768. Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3), 187–213. Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K. K. (2006). Conflict and performance in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(3), 237–274. Kashima, E. S., & Kashima, Y. (1998). Culture and language: The case of cultural dimensions and personal pronoun use. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(3), 461–486. Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. E. (2000). The global virtual manager: A prescription for success. European Management Journal, 18(2), 183–194. Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (2002). Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 7–40. Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20, 1–17. Kerber, K. W., & Buono, A. F. (2004). Leadership challenges in global virtual teams: Lessons from the field. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 69(4), 4–10. Kezsbom, D. S. (2000). Creating teamwork in virtual teams. Cost Engineering, 42(10), 33–36. Killingsworth, M. J. (1992). Discourse communities: Local and global. Rhetoric Review, 11(1), 110–122. King, N., & Majchrzak, A. (2003). Technology alignment and adaptation for virtual teams involved in unstructured knowledge work. In C. B. Gibson, & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 265– 291). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Klitmøller, A., & Lauring, J. (2013). When global virtual teams share knowledge: Media richness, cultural difference and language commonality. Journal of World Business, 48(3), 398–406. Knoll, K., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1998). Working together in global virtual teams. In M. Igbaria & M. Tan (Eds.), The virtual workplace (pp. 2–23). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Krumm, S., Terwiel, K., & Hertel, G. (2013). Challenges in norm formation and adherence: The knowledge, skills, and ability requirements of virtual and traditional cross-cultural teams. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12(1), 33–44. LaBrosse, M. (2008). Managing virtual teams. Employment Relations Today, 35(2), 81–86. Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. LaPointe, D. K. (2007). Pursuing interaction. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), Finding your online voice (pp. 83–104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

166

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Larbi, N. E., & Springfield, S. (2004). When no one’s home: Being a remote writer on distributed teams. Technical Communication, 51(1), 102–108. Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. The Communication of Ideas, 37, 215–228. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching (2nd ed.). London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lea, M., Spears, R., & Rogers, P. (2003). Social processes in electronic team work: The central issue of identity. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory of organizational practices (pp. 99–115). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Lee, O. (2000). The role of cultural protocol in media choice in a Confucian virtual workplace. IEEE Transaction on Professional Communication, 43(2), 196–200. Lee, W. W., & Owens, D. L. (2000). Multimedia-based instructional design. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/ Pfeiffer. Lekushoff, A. (2012, September/October). Lifestyle-driven virtual teams: A new paradigm for professional services firms. Ivey Business Journal. Retrieved from http://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/lifestyle-driven-virtual-teams-a-new-paradigmfor-professional-services-firms/ Leonard, B. (2011, June 1). Managing virtual teams. Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/Publications/hrmagazine/EditorialContent/2011/0611/Pages/0611leonard.aspx Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer and T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 794–813. Liaw, S. S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864–873. Lilian, S. C. (2014). Virtual teams: Opportunities and challenges for e-leaders. Procedia— Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110, 1251–1261. Lin, C., Chiu, C., Joe, S., & Tasi, Y. (2010). Assessing online learning ability from a social exchange perspective: A survey of virtual teams within business organizations. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(9), 849–867. Lin, C., Standing, C., & Liu, Y.-C. (2008). A model to develop effective virtual teams. Decision Support Systems, 45(4), 1031–1045. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1999). Virtual teams: The new way to work. Strategy & Leadership, 27(1), 14–19. Lisak, A., & Erez, M. (2015). Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics. Journal of World Business, 50(1), 3–14. Liu, X., Magjuka, R. J., & Lee, S. H. (2008). The effects of cognitive thinking styles, trust, conflict management on online students’ learning and virtual team performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 829–846.

References •

167

Livermore, D. (2011). The cultural intelligence difference: Master the one skill you can’t do without in today’s global economy. New York, NY: AMACOM, a division of the American Management Association. Lockwood, N. R., Carobolante, L., Fegley, S., Lundin, K., Olivas-Luján, M. R., Orler, E….Williams, S. (2010). Successfully transitioning to a virtual organization: Challenges, impact and technology. SHRM Research Quarterly, 1–9. First Quarter. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management. Lurey J. S., & Raisinghani, M. S. (2001). An empirical study of best practices in virtual teams. Information & Management, 38(8), 523–544. MacNeil, C. M. (2003). Line managers: Facilitators of knowledge sharing in teams. Employee Relations, 25(3), 294–307. Majchrzak, A., Rice, R. E., Malhotra, A., King, N., & Ba, S. (2000). Technology adaptation: The case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 569–600. Maletzke, G. (1988). Massenkommunikationstheorien. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 60–70. Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 805–835. Matveeva, N. (2008). Teaching intercultural communication in a basic technical writing course: A survey of our current practices and methods. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 38(4), 387–410. Maylath, B., Vandepitte, S., Minacori, P., Isohella, S., Mousten, B., & Humbley, J. (2013). Managing complexity: A technical communication translation case study in multilateral international collaboration. Technical Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 67–84. Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11(5), 473–492. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59. McDonough, E. F. I., Kahn, K. B., & Barczak, G. (2001). An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and colocated new product development teams. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(2), 110–120. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith—a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118. Melton, J. H. (2008). Lost in translation: Professional communication competencies in global training contexts. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51(2), 198–214. Meyer, K., & Wilson, J. (2011). The role of online learning in the emergency plans of flagship institutions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, IV( I). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring141/meyer_wilson141. html Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 166–195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Minacori, P. (2009). Translation assessment at university—the creation of a computer interface, part 1. Proceedings of the 17th LSP Symposium, Denmark.

168

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2010). Hofstede’s fifth dimension: New evidence from the World Values Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. doi: 10.1177/0022022110388567 Mintu, A. T. (1992). Review of Hofstede’s Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(2), 362–365. Mockaitis, A. I., Rose, E. L., & Zettinig, P. (2012). The power of individual cultural values in global virtual teams. Cross Cultural Management, 12(2), 193–210. Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 89–106. Mortensen, M., & Hinds, P. J. (2002). Fuzzy teams: Boundary disagreement in distributed and collocated teams. In P. J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 283–308). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mote, G. (2014, June 16–22). Leading from a distance. Corridor Business Journal, pp. 15–16. Mousten, B., Maylath, B., Vandepitte, S., & Humbley, J. (2010). Learning localization through trans-Atlantic collaboration: Bridging the gap. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53(4), 401–411. Mukherjee, D., Lahiri, S., Mukherjee, D., & Billing, T. K. (2012). Leading virtual teams: How do social, cognitive, and behavioral capabilities matter? Management Decision, 50(2), 273–290. Myers, G. (2005). Communities of practice, risk and Sellafield. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language, power, and social context (pp. 198–213). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Ocker, R. J. (2005). Influences on creativity in asynchronous virtual teams: A qualitative analysis of experimental teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(1), 22–39. Ocker, R. J. (2007). Creativity in asynchronous virtual teams: Putting the pieces together. In T. Torries & S. MacGregor (Eds.), Higher creativity for virtual teams: Development platforms for co-creation (pp. 26–47). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Ocker, R. J., Huang, H., Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (2011). Leadership dynamics in partially distributed teams: An exploratory study of the effects of configuration and distance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 20(3), 273–292. O’Hara-Devereaux, M., & Johnasen, R. (1994). GlobalWork: Bridging distance, culture and time. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human Computer Interaction, 15(2), 139–178. O’Neill, J. W., Beauvais, L. L., & Scholl, R. W. (2001). The use of organizational culture and structure to guide strategic behavior: An information processing perspective. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 2(2), 131–150. Oringderff, J. (2004). ‘My way’: Piloting an online focus group. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(3), 69–75. Ornatowski, C. M. (1998). Technical communication and rhetoric. In K. Staples & C. M. Ornatowski (Eds.), Foundations for teaching technical communication: Theory, practice, and program design (pp. 31–51). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

References •

169

Pangil, F., & Chan, J. M. (2014). The mediating effect of knowledge sharing on the relationship between trust and virtual team effectiveness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(1), 92–106. Panteli, N., & Sockalingam, S. (2005). Trust and conflict within virtual inter-organizational alliances: A framework for facilitating knowledge sharing. Decision Support Systems, 39(4), 599–617. Paul, S., Seetharaman, P., Samarah, I., & Mykytyn, P. (2005). Understanding conflict in virtual teams: An experimental investigation using content analysis. In J. F. Nunamaker & R. F. Briggs (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (44a). IEEE Computer Society Press. Peterson Cultural Style Indicator. (n.d.). Across Cultures. Retrieved from http://acrosscultures.com/peterson-cultural-style-indicator/ Ping, H. (2012). Intercultural awareness in professional translators: Examples from technical and non-technical documents. Translation Quarterly, 64. Prasad, K., & Akhilesh, K. B. (2002). Global virtual teams: What impacts their design and performance? Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 8(5/6), 102–112. Preece, J. (2004). Etiquette online: from nice to necessary. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 56–61. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. Purvanova, R. K., & Bono, J. E. (2009). Transformational leadership in context: Face-toface and virtual teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 343–357. Reilly, R. R., & Ryan, M. (2007). Leadership in virtual teams. Howe School Forum, Wesley J. Howe School of Technology Management, Stevens Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://www.marbletreegroup.com.ar/blog/wp-content/uploads/ Leadership-4.pdf Rice, D. J., Davidson, B. D., Dannenhoffer, J. F., & Gay, G. K. (2007). Improving the effectiveness of virtual teams by adapting team processes. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 16, 567–594. Riopelle, K., Gluesing, J. C., Alcordo, T. C., Baba, M. L., Britt, D., McKether, W., ... Wagner, K. H. (2003). Context, task, and the evolution of technology use in global virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 239–264). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Risku, H. (2010). A cognitive scientific view on technical communication and translation: Do embodiment and situatedness really make a difference? Target, 22(1), 94–111. Robey, D., Khoo, H. M., & Powers, C. (2000). Situated learning in cross-functional virtual teams. Technical Communication, 47(1), 51–66. Robson, A., & Robinson, L. (2013). Building on models of information behaviour: Linking information seeking and communication. Journal of Documentation, 69(2), 169–193. Rosen, B., Furst, S., & Blackburn, R. (2007). Overcoming barriers to knowledge sharing in virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 36(3), 259–273. Rutkowski, A. F., Vogel, D. R., Van Genuchten, M., Bemelmans, T. M., & Favier, M. (2002). E-collaboration: The reality of virtuality. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 45(4), 219–230.

170

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Sackmann, S. A., & Friesl, M. (2007). Exploring cultural impacts on knowledge sharing behavior in project teams—results from a simulation study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(6), 142–156. Sadri, H. A., & Flammia, M. (2009). Using technology to prepare students for the challenges of global citizenship. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics, 7(5), 66–71. Sadri, H. A., & Flammia, M. (2011). Intercultural communication: A new approach to international relations and global challenges. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing. Salmon, G. (2011). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning (2nd ed.). London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer. Sandeen, C. (2009). It’s not easy being green: Green marketing and environmental consumerism in continuing higher education. Continuing Higher Education Review, 73, 93–113. Sarker, S., Ahuja, M., Sarker, S., & Kirkeby, S. (2011). The role of communication and trust in global virtual teams: a social network perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(1), 273–310. Scheuermann, L., & Taylor, G. (1997). Netiquette. Internet Research, 7(4), 269–273. Schriver, K. A. (1997). Dynamics in document design: Creating text for readers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Scott, M. E. (2013). “Communicate through the roof”: A case study analysis of the communicative rules and resources of an effective global virtual team. Communication Quarterly, 61(3), 301–318. Selzer, J. (2004). Rhetorical analysis: Understanding how texts persuade readers. In C. Bazerman & M. Prier (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 279–307). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Serrat, O. (2009). Managing virtual teams. Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/intl/145/ Shachaf, P. (2008). Cultural diversity and information and communication technology impacts on global virtual teams: An exploratory study. Information and Management, 45(2), 131–142. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Shokef, E., & Erez, M. (2008). Cultural intelligence and global identity in multicultural teams. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 177–191). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Siebdrat, F., Hoegl, M., & Ernst, H. (2009). How to manage virtual teams. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(4), 63–68. Sims, H. P., & Lorenzi, P. (1992). The new leadership paradigm: Social learning and cognition in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sivunen, A., & Valo, M. (2006). Team leaders’ technology choice in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49(1), 57–68.

References •

171

Snow, C. C., Snell, S. A., Davison, S. C., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Use transnational teams to globalize your company. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 50–67. Sole, D., & Edmondson, A. (2002). Situated knowledge and learning in dispersed teams. British Journal of Management, 13, 517–534. Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59–70. Spears, R., Lea, M., & Postmes, T. (2001). Social psychological theories of computermediated communication: Social pain or social gain. In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology, (pp. 601–623). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. St. Amant, K. (2000). Expanding translation use to improve the quality of technical communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 43(3), 323–326. St. Amant, K. (2008). Thinking globally, teaching locally: Understanding the changing nature of technical communication in an age of globalization. In B. Thatcher & K. St.Amant (Eds.), Teaching intercultural rhetoric and technical communication: Theories, curriculum, pedagogies and practices (pp. 1–11). Amityville, NY: Baywood. Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voight, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research in multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4), 690–709. Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73–93. Suchan, J., & Hayzak, G. (2001). The communication characteristics of virtual teams: A case study. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 44(3), 174–186. Sudweeks, F., & Simoff, S. J. (2005). Leading conversations: Communication behaviours of emergent leaders in virtual teams. In J. F. Nunamaker & R. F. Briggs (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (108a). IEEE Computer Society Press. Susman, G. I., Gray, B. L., Perry, J., & Blair, C. E. (2003). Recognition and reconciliation of differences in interpretation of misalignments when collaborative technologies are introduced into new product development teams. Journal of Engineering Technology Management, 20(1–2), 141–159. Symons, J., & Stenzel, C. (2007). Virtually borderless: An examination of culture in virtual teaming. Journal of General Management, 32(3), 1–17. Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Tavcar, J., Zavbi, R., Verlinden, J., & Duhovnik, J. (2005). Skills for effective communication and work in global product development teams. Journal of Engineering Design, 16(6), 557–576. Thompson, C., & Caputo, P. (2009). The reality of virtual work: Is your organization ready? London, UK: Aon Consulting. Thrush, E. A. (2001). Plain English? A study of plain English vocabulary and international audiences. Technical Communication, 48(3), 289–296.

172

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Timmerman, C. E., & Scott, C. R. (2006). Virtually working: Communicative and structural predictors of media use and key outcomes in virtual work teams. Communication Monographs, 73(1), 108–136. Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Managing intercultural conflicts effectively. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication (7th ed., pp. 360–371). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 19–28. Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 17–29. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506–520. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Trivedi, A., & Desai, J. (2012). A review of literature on e-leadership. Shri Chimanbhai Patel Institutes, Ahmedabad. Working Paper No. CPI/MBA/2012/0004. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384. Tuckman, B., & Jensen, M. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427. Tusting, K. (2005). Language and power in communities of practice. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language, power, and social context (pp. 36–54). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Tyran, K. L., Tyran, C. K., & Shepherd, M. (2003). Exploring emerging leadership in virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 183–195). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Verburg, R. M., Bosch-Sijtsema, P., & Vartiainen, M. (2013). Getting it done: Critical success factors for project managers in virtual work settings. International Journal of Project Management, 31(1), 68–79. Vogel, D. R., Van Genuchten, M., Lou, D., Verveen, S., Van Eekout, M., & Adams, A. (2001). Exploratory research on the role of national and professional cultures in a distributed learning project. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 44(2), 114–124. Wakefield, R. L., Leidner, D. E., & Garrison, G. (2008). Research note—A model of conflict, leadership, and performance in virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 434–455. Walther, J. B. (2009). Computer-mediated communication and virtual groups: Applications to interethnic conflict. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37(3), 225–238. Walther, J. B., & Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 828–846. Walvoord, A. A., Redden, E. R., Elliott, L. R., & Coovert, M. D. (2008). Empowering followers in virtual teams: Guiding principles from theory and practice. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1884–1906.

References •

173

Wang, J. (2013). Moving towards ethnorelativism: A framework for measuring and meeting students’ needs in cross-cultural business and technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 43(2), 201–218. Wang, S. K., & Hsu, H. Y. (2008). Use of the webinar tool (Elluminate) to support training: The effects of webinar-learning implementation from student-trainers’ perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(3), 175–194. 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, 28(4), 975–996. Watson-Manheim, W. B., & Belanger, F. (2002). Support for communication-based work processes in virtual work. e-Service Journal, 1(3), 61–82. Webster, J., & Wong, W. K. P. (2008). Comparing traditional and virtual group forms: Identity, communication and trust in naturally occurring project teams. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1), 41–62. Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–381. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J. D. (2009). Digital habitats: Stewarding technology for communities. Portland, OR: CPsquare. White, M. (2014). The management of virtual teams and virtual meetings. Business Information Review, 31(2), 111–117. Whitford, T., & Moss, S. A. (2009). Transformational leadership in distributed work groups: The moderating role of follower regulatory focus and goal orientation. Communication Research, 36(6), 810–837. Whithaus, C., & Neff, J. M. (2006). Contact and interactivity: Social constructionist pedagogy in a video-based, management writing course. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15(4), 431–456. Wickham, K. R., & Walther, J. B. (2007). Perceived behaviors of emergent and assigned leaders in virtual groups. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 35, 59–85. Worchel, S. (1986). The role of cooperation in reducing intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 288–305). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. World Values Survey. (n.d.). World Values Survey Site. Retrieved from http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp Yeow, J., & Martin, R. (2013). The role of self-regulation in developing leaders: A longitudinal field experiment. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 625–637. Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2004). Emergent leaders in virtual teams: What do emergent leaders do? Information and Organization, 14(1), 27–58. Yoon, S. W., & Johnson, S. D. (2008). Phases and patterns of group development in virtual learning teams. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5–6), 595–618. Yu, H. (2012). Intercultural competence in technical communication: A working definition and review of assessment methods. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21(2), 168–186.

174

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285–305. Zaccaro, S. J., & Bader, P. (2003). E-leadership and the challenges of leading e-teams: Minimizing the bad and maximizing the good. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 377–387. Zakaria, N. (2013). Creating cross-culturally competent leaders for global teams. The Academic Executive Brief, 3(2), 17–18. Zakaria, N., Amelinckx, A., & Wilemon, D. (2004). Working together apart? Building a knowledge-sharing culture for global virtual teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(1), 15–29. Zakaria, N., & Yusof, S. A. M. (2015). Can we count on you at a distance? The impact of culture on formation of swift trust within global virtual teams. In J. L. Wildman & R. L. Griffith (Eds.), Leading global teams (pp. 253–268). New York, NY: Springer. Zander, L., Zettinig, P., & Mäkelä, K. (2013). Leading global virtual teams to success. Organizational Dynamics, 42(3), 228–237. Ziek, P., & Smulowitz, S. (2014). The impact of emergent virtual leadership competencies on team effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(2), 106–120. Zigurs, I. (2003). Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity? Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 339–351. Zofi, Y. (2012). Getting deliverables out the door. Industrial Engineer, 44(7), 35–40. Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York, NY: Basic Books.

APPENDIX 1

A CASE STUDY OF VIRTUAL TEAM COLLABORATION

This case study describes a collaboration among students from the University of Limerick (UL), the University of Central Florida (UCF), and Université Paris Diderot (UPD). 1 INTRODUCTION In the global workplace, technical communicators often have to write documentation that will be translated, and they have to work with translators. It is important that technical communication students are prepared for the challenges of working with translators, and it is equally important that students studying to become translators are well equipped to work with professional writers. The process of preparing documentation for translation and of carrying out the translations will flow much more smoothly when professionals on both sides of the process understand one another’s jobs and are aware of the competencies entailed in crafting technical documents and in translating them (Gnecchi, Maylath, Mousten, 1

This case study is adapted from a paper submitted to ProComm 2015, which was co-written by our colleague Dr. Patricia Minacori, from the Université Paris-Diderot in Paris, France.

Virtual Teams in Higher Education: A Handbook for Students and Teachers, pages 175–186. Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing 175 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

176

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Scarpa, & Vandepitte, 2011; Maylath, Vandepitte, Minacori, Isohella, Mousten, & Humbley, 2013; Melton, 2008). Since 2006, students from UL and UCF have collaborated to create documentation. Since 2013, students from UPD have also been involved in the project. The UL and UCF students, who study technical communication, collaborate to write procedural documents. The UPD students translate the documents into French. A key feature of the project design is the need for collaboration among the document writers and translators throughout the process. This case study provides a theoretical background to the project and describes the assignment that student teams collaborate on. It then presents findings from two iterations of the project. LITERATURE REVIEW Many competencies needed by translators are similar to those needed by technical communicators, including intercultural awareness and knowledge (Ping, 2012), an understanding of contexts (cultural, professional, collaborative) (Melton, 2008), and the ability to bring both logical and creative approaches to the activity of text production (Dam-Jensen & Heine, 2013). Furthermore, technical communicators and translators need social skills and the ability to build and maintain team relationships. Intercultural Awareness and Knowledge Developing students’ intercultural awareness and sensitivity is an important goal of instruction in both technical communication (Matveeva, 2008; Wang, 2013; Yu, 2012) and translation studies (Ping, 2012). Mousten, Maylath, Vandepitte, and Humbley (2010) describe a major goal of a project in which technical communication students were paired with translation students as: “[heightening] students’ awareness of cultural differences, starting with their own” (p. 406). Intercultural knowledge is vital to the creation and translation of documentation for members of other cultures; this knowledge is vital because documentation must be prepared to meet the needs of a particular audience’s cultural viewpoint (Ping, 2012). Although localization and translation have traditionally been viewed as two separate processes, more recently, scholars have argued that the two processes should be integrated with one another (Melton, 2008) since translation involves the creation of a new document for a particular cultural context. Understanding Contexts Documentation is never created or translated in a vacuum. Contexts surround the writing and translation processes; in addition to cultural contexts, writers and translators need to consider the professional, social, and collaborative contexts. Documentation may be used in the context of training or relationship building and not solely as a means for information sharing.

A Case Study of Virtual Team Collaboration •

177

The collaborative context encompasses an approach to translation on the part of writers that does not view translation as a one-way street (St. Amant, 2000); instead of delivering a source text to translators and then assuming that their work is now done, writers should collaborate with translators throughout the process. In addition to working with one another, writers and translators may also work with localization teams. Logical and Creative Approaches As theories about the nature of translation have evolved over time, approaches to the process of translation have changed and developed as well. Viewing translation as a situated and embodied cognitive activity means that “translation competence [is] the ability to create understanding and produce texts in a new, meaningful, situated way” (Risku, 2010, p. 99). This view of translation has parallels with social constructivist theories of rhetoric (Ornatowski, 1998; Selzer, 2004). Like translators, technical communicators draw on both logical and creative thinking when developing documentation. In fact, Dam-Jensen and Heine (2013) argue that writing and translation can be viewed as two categories of text production that share many characteristics. They also stress that many aspects of a situation may affect text production, including “social interaction with collaborative networks, the physical environment, and the resources/tools at the text producer’s disposal” (Dam-Jensen & Heine, 2013, p. 91). These situational factors are ones that affect writers and translators alike. Of course, translators always begin with an existing text while writers usually do not. However, both writers and translators must draw on memory, logical and creative skills, and knowledge when engaging in the process of producing and revising texts. Social Skills and Team Building Technical communicators must be prepared to work in global teams and to collaborate with diverse teammates, often across disciplinary boundaries. They need to be able to establish effective working relationships to work harmoniously with one another. Developing trusting relationships is particularly challenging when teammates are working in a virtual setting. To succeed in global virtual teams, technical communicators must adapt to cultural differences and develop trusting relationships with their teammates (Gaertner & Dovido, 2000). Similarly, translators must work as “part of a network of actors, which includes the author of the source text, the client who placed the order, and their counterparts on the other side of the cultural and linguistic border” (Risku, 2010 p. 101). The ability to build congenial and effective working relationships with diverse others, often through solely virtual means, is a vital competency for both technical communicators and translators. In a case study on translators working in South Korea and Japan, Melton (2008) found that translation competence depended on the development of team relationships and rapport. Similarly, reporting on a col-

178

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

laboration between technical communication and translation students, Mousten et al. (2010, p. 407) stated that the students’ ability to gain knowledge depended on “teamwork, trust, and personal relationships” and went on to emphasize the importance of preparing students to function in interdisciplinary settings. Preparing Students for Global Work Teachers of translation and of technical communication agree that they must prepare students to function as part of diverse teams whose goal is the creation and translation of documents that address the needs of unique cultural, professional, and social contexts. Cooperation within communities of practice is essential to the success of these endeavors, as is the ability to use information and communication technologies to collaborate across national and disciplinary boundaries. Crosstraining of translation and technical communication students will enrich the curricula for both disciplines. Some studies have already provided valuable data on the benefits of collaborative projects that encompass students in both fields (Flammia, Cleary, & Slattery, 2010; Gnecchi et al., 2011; Mousten et al., 2010). The current study builds upon these models to further develop understanding of the challenges inherent in such collaboration and the means for overcoming those challenges in order to prepare students for global work. In the next section, the phases of the documentation and translation projects that were undertaken at three universities are outlined. This section is followed by evidence from students’ reflective blog entries that discussed communication strategies, tools selected, roles chosen, challenges encountered, and students’ perceptions and experiences. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT This section offers an overview of the three collaborative projects conducted with technical communication students at the University of Limerick (UL) and the University of Central Florida (UCF) and translation students at the Université Paris Diderot (UPD). It describes communication tools available to the students, parameters of the assignments, and the overall structure of the project. Communication Tools At the start of the project, UL faculty members created a Sakai project site for each team. Sakai (known as Sulis at UL) is a virtual learning environment (VLE) that incorporates various teaching and learning tools. Each Sulis project site was accessible to that team only and to the three faculty members, and comprised tools as follows: • A resources area where students could share project resources • A discussion forum where students could have asynchronous discussions • A chat room where students could engage in real-time conversations

A Case Study of Virtual Team Collaboration •

179

Although students could also use other tools for collaboration (e.g., Skype for videoconferencing, Google Docs for sharing files, or Facebook for updates), they were required to document each tool they used and to either grant faculty members access to those tools or provide a transcript of their collaboration. For the reflective blog assignment (described in the next section), students were also free to use whichever blog tool they preferred. The Assignments In spring 2013, fall 2013, and spring 2015, faculty members at UL, UCF, and UPD coordinated collaborative documentation projects for translation with their students. Students worked in small virtual teams comprised of Irish and U.S. technical writers, working with French translators. The writers developed short instructional documents and the translators translated those documents. The UL students were all at Master’s level, studying technical communication and e-learning. Most had no prior knowledge or experience of these fields prior to commencing their MA program, and only a few had worked in virtual teams before. The UCF students were senior-level undergraduates, studying technical communication, and very few had experience working in virtual teams. The applied languages department at UPD has two Master’s degrees: one in translation and one in technical writing. Project participants take mainly translation courses but also take a course in technical writing. The project was conducted within a translation class, in the first year of the Master’s degree. Each iteration of the project spanned approximately seven weeks and comprised two phases: 1. 2.

The writing-for-translation phase The translation phase

During the writing-for-translation phase, the writers worked together to write a short set of instructions to help a nontechnical audience perform a simple task using a collaborative technology. The parameters for the instructional document are described below. Deliverable 1: The Instructional Document Irish and U.S. writers were asked to write a short set of instructions to help a nontechnical audience perform a simple task using a collaborative technology. Some examples were provided to students, such as the following: • • • •

How to create a Facebook account and modify profile or privacy settings How to use the Sulis wiki to collaborate on a document How to use Google Drive/Docs to collaborate on a document How to set-up email on a smart phone

Writers had various guidelines, including the following:

180

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

• Write original instructions, which should be between 600 and 900 words in length • Write in the imperative, in short simple sentences • Use simple language • Write and design the instructions as though they will appear online • Define unfamiliar terms as needed within the body of the text • Format the instructions following accepted principles of document design, to make the instructional material usable and effective (including graphics, where appropriate) Deliverable 2: The Reflective Diary/Blog Requirements for the reflective diary/blog varied in each institution. At UL, the students were required to maintain reflective blogs for the duration of the semester, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for another module. At UCF and UPD, the students were required to maintain blogs for the duration of the documentation/translation project only. Students had to post at least two entries every week for the duration of the project. In the blogs, students had to discuss: • Communication strategies and tools they selected • Leadership structure and roles chosen by the teams • Challenges faced by the team members and the way they addressed those challenges • Their perceptions of what they learned from the experience • What they would do differently in future projects The translation phase of the project mirrored how translation should happen in professional environments. According to the parameters of the assignment, writers of the procedural text (at UL and UCF) had to contact the translators (at UPD) from the start of the project. The translation students also had access to the Sulis project sites for their teams and could exchange emails with their teammates. French students were involved in the collaborative work from the beginning of the project: They were asked to be part of the brainstorming process to choose a subject to document. The UL and UCF writers in each team shared their ideas either through Sulis or through other collaborative tools, with the French students. Once the document was designed, the French students could devote themselves to the translation process. They had the opportunity to organize their work as they wanted within their own teams in one of the following ways: • In some teams, each student translated the full document, then all members revised it together. • Some teams decided to split the document to be translated in equal parts, and then collectively revised. • In some teams, some members were devoted to translation, others to revision.

A Case Study of Virtual Team Collaboration •

181

Students were advised to proceed according to the first option, since the document was not very long. Translation is about comprehension; if translators translate a text, they consider difficult aspects (e.g., terminology and concepts) and talk about them within a team to find the best linguistic solution. Nevertheless, in the real world, translators sometimes have to split a document to save time. Revision was the final, but essential, task. Revision can be divided into three phases, according to Minacori (2009): 1.

2.

3.

During phase one, the source text (ST) and the target text (TT) are compared to see if each message intended by the author is expressed—that is, if the meaning of the ST is present in the TT. The first phase can be helpful to ensure that no phrase, sentence, or paragraph has been omitted and that the author’s intention has been fully respected. Phase two deals with the quality of the target text. It is very important to revise the target text separately to remove the linguistic outer shell of the source text and to concentrate on the translation’s quality. This is a fundamental phase during which students must pay special attention to avoid any process of calquing (word-for-word translation). Moreover, during this phase, the reviser checks the cohesion of the text, and references and terminology are reviewed to see if they match best standard practice. Phase three involves revision to review grammar and syntax. It is recommended to separate phases two and three so working memory is not impaired when checking the form and the substance.

The French students had sufficient time to revise their texts, as this is a vital step in translation. They could then give feedback to the technical writers in their respective teams. During this phase, localization was also possible and sometimes necessary. The next section discusses the key findings to date from the project, using quotes from students’ reflective blogs to exemplify points. RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH This section describes the findings of the research, including communication strategies and tools selected by teams, leadership structures and roles chosen by teams, challenges faced by team members and the ways they addressed those challenges, students’ perceptions of what they learned from the experience, and what students would do differently in future projects. This discussion focuses on the first two iterations of the virtual team project, as data from the third iteration have not yet been analyzed. Quotes from students’ blogs exemplify the findings.

182

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Communication Strategies and Tools Selected Many teams relied on the Sulis project sites because each team had its own site, comprising collaboration and file sharing options, as noted in these comments: • “We were happy to collaborate openly in Sulis, and because of this there was more visibility to our collaborations.” • “Having looked at Sulis, I saw that we could use the announcements to post drafts of the project which would also send email notifications for team members.” • “As a forum for collaborative communication SULIS works well when its use is dictated by deadlines.” Similarly, one U.S. student commented on the benefits of using Sulis: I think using a singular platform like we did with Sulis was an incredibly efficient way to communicate, and I’m glad that was decided before we got to the project. Sometimes leaving things open to group choice can just create too much chaos, too many options to choose from. I’m glad we had Sulis, with chat rooms and discussion boards, to keep communication in one area, and allow all of us access to it. It was also really interesting to get to see what the University of Limerick’s online platform looked like. It was helpful that it is the same basic format as other online learning platforms that I’ve used in the past.

The proliferation of collaboration tools available resulted in some teams selecting alternatives. Dropbox was an option used by several teams for file sharing: We’ve used Dropbox as a collaborative tool, and this is quite easy to use and helpful for any collaboration. It is very easy to upload your files and a great way of making sure everyone is using the same files.

The variety of options for collaboration may have been overwhelming for some teams, as highlighted in the following comment: “I just hope my teammates were able to follow me, I kept changing my mind about how to share files.” One Irish student commented on a strategy that many teams adopted, of having “local” meetings as regularly as possible: We have decided (Teammate 1 and I) to meet face to face as often as possible during the coming weeks so that we can stay on top of the deadlines for this project, and work together as a cohesive unit on the tasks.

The next section outlines findings in relation to team roles.

A Case Study of Virtual Team Collaboration •

183

Leadership Structures and Roles Faculty members did not appoint leaders in teams; indeed teams were not required to have a leader, though some teams did adopt leaders. Team leaders took their responsibilities seriously, as this comment indicates: As joint team leader I have learned how time consuming it is to collaborate with and lead a team. There’s a constant need to make sure that everybody is on the same page (metaphorically speaking), and that everybody is receiving our communications.

Several teams chose to have one leader in each location: Our leadership structure was relaxed amongst most of the team. However, we did appoint one person for each team to make the important posts. I was the representative from the Orlando team, Teammate 2 was the rep from the Irish team, and Teammate 3 spoke for the French team. This arrangement worked because it helped to centralize the key thoughts for each team within our group. A potential drawback would be if the team leaders did not communicate effectively internally.

Other roles assumed included editor and graphic designer. Team members were able to select roles that suited their skills or preferences: I have however nominated myself for the graphic designer role. Also a general editor has been decided upon. I feel that the graphic designer role suits me as I have a lot of creativity and design experience from my undergraduate degree.

Among the translators, localization emerged as a necessary role. When documenting software in English, if the software was available in French, the French students decided to capture screenshots of the French version to be used in the translation. If some applications were different in English and in French, the French students had to localize the text, and not just translate it. In one case, the Irish and U.S. students helped their French teammates to download French screenshots for the templates. Challenges and Solutions Students faced challenges that many virtual teams report, including lack of communication at key points in the project and the need to trust their teammates, as shown in these quotes: • “Without sitting across the table and meeting our colleagues we have no idea what they will contribute, their attitude or if they are even present. These are new considerations that require new methods and are exciting but daunting at the same time.” • “It has been difficult getting our team members to contribute to the forum and to offer suggestions. I see one of our teammates has posted their opinions, but other than that, it feels like one way traffic.”

184

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

• “So far there have only been two responses from our team members on a poll of when best to meet in the Sulis chatroom despite the fact that I emailed the poll to everyone, made an announcement and started a new topic in the discussion forum hours ago.” Teams that did not appoint an official team leader regretted the lack of leadership. This quote from one team member illustrates a possible solution: If I was doing this again, would I appoint an official leader, whose primary role is to coordinate the tasks of team members, ensure team members meet deadlines, take team members to task for not meeting deadlines, and who has no role in the actual creating, editing, and styling of the document, but just delegates and oversees those responsibilities? Well, when I put it like that, it sounds great! But that might need an authoritative style of leadership…and in such a short timeframe, where building relationships is difficult, this style of leadership may not work out either. But it sounds good in theory.

One team experienced challenges related to time differences and to the shortcomings of the virtual learning environment, but they found a way to address those challenges: The most valuable lesson I learned while working on this project is the issue of time while working with members in another time zone. With a five hour time difference in Ireland and a six hour time difference in France, planning virtual meetings was quite a challenge. With everyone having different schedules, I don’t think we had one meeting where all of us could attend at the same time. Luckily we had Sulis where we could chat and whoever couldn’t attend could check what was said, but we soon learned that even that platform had its shortcomings. Unfortunately, Sulis only kept so many messages in chat, so someone would have to copy, paste, save, and upload them to a Word document every few days.

Some writing teams had difficulty contacting the French students in the early stages of the first project, possibly because the French students did not realize that they needed to be involved at every stage. Faculty members stressed this requirement in later iterations of the project. Lessons Learned from the Experience Many teams appreciated the opportunity they had been afforded to work with collaborators in two different countries to produce documentation in two language versions. Some students noted how the project had deepened their understanding of working in an intercultural environment: I know now that working with a team, whose principle language is not English, demands more than simply saying hello and writing simple language. It requires time and effort in order to find a common ground that is not built upon how we speak but more so how we live and can interact with each other.

A Case Study of Virtual Team Collaboration •

185

It was rewarding to think back and review what has been achieved by a group of strangers living on different sides of the globe. We were able to dispel our different cultures and backgrounds and create something as if we had been sharing the one classroom. The result is a small but impressive piece of work that did not exist a fortnight beforehand.

The need to agree on technology and predictable communication patterns in advance of starting the collaboration was an important lesson for one student: On reflection, I believe that a key factor in the success of any virtual collaboration project must be to agree at the outset one place where the team must meet. In our case we chose the discussion forum on Sulis. Team members must appear there, must post there and must check in there regularly. That ensures that we are all singing off the same hymn sheet. It is easy then to include peripheral communication as we go along.

Another student made a similar comment on her satisfaction with the project based on the strong communication in her team: I really enjoyed this experience. I have worked in several virtual teams before and there are many things that could go wrong if everyone does not work together. This team was very cooperative and eager to complete the project. I would like to work in a team like this again in future virtual projects. Everyone had excellent communication skills and a strong work ethic. There is not much I would do differently in future projects because this project went so smoothly. Communication and cooperation are the most important skills to have when completing any group project and our team did great. I look forward to working with international team members in the future because it is a great learning experience and everyone has something new to contribute.

Because the French students were involved in the collaboration from the start of the project, they appreciated having time to collect information about the concepts and the terminology, which would be a rare luxury in a professional translation environment. CONCLUSIONS Technical writers and translators have different but related skills. While a document is being designed and translated, the two professions can greatly benefit from one another if they share basic knowledge about their needs, expectations, and procedures; in addition, sharing this information leads to greater efficiency in international projects. Virtual teams are complex structures that require significant planning and support. Faculty members setting up virtual team projects must consider many variables, including their own course content, potential collaborators, how to plan and manage the project, the assignment, learning outcomes, technology choices, and

186

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

communication strategies. A strong theme that emerges from this case study is the importance of advance planning. Consistent and predictable communication patterns are also essential, among faculty, between faculty and students, and among student team members. Although this case study focuses on documentation and translation teams in higher education, the findings, particularly in relation to planning and communication strategies, also have relevance for global virtual team members and managers in workplace settings.

APPENDIX 2

RESOURCES

BOOKS Chen, J. (2012). 50 digital team-building games: Fast, fun meeting openers, group activities and adventures using social media, smart phones, GPS, tablets, and more. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Duarte, D. L., & Snyder, N. T. (2006). Mastering virtual teams: Strategies, tools, and techniques that succeed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Harvard Business Press. (2010). Leading virtual teams. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Publishing. Livermore, D. (2011). The cultural intelligence difference: Master the one skill you can’t do without in today’s global economy. New York, NY: AMACOM, a division of the American Management Association. Nadler, R. S. (2010). Leading with emotional intelligence: Hands-on strategies for building confident and collaborative star performers. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Scannell, M., Abrams, M., & Mulvihill, M. (2011). Big book of virtual teambuilding games: Quick, effective activities to build communication, trust and collaboration from anywhere! New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J D. (2009). Digital habitats: Stewarding technology for communities. Portland, OR: CPsquare. Zofi, Y. (2011). A manager’s guide to virtual teams. New York, NY: AMACOM. Virtual Teams in Higher Education: A Handbook for Students and Teachers, pages 187–196. Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing 187 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

188

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

JOURNAL ARTICLES AND CONFERENCE PAPERS The articles are divided into categories based on their primary focus. Of course, many of the articles discuss more than one issue or challenge. Articles on Communication Berry, G. R. (2011). Enhancing effectiveness on virtual teams: Understanding why traditional team skills are insufficient. Journal of Business Communication, 48(2), 186–206. Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2004). Building trust in virtual teams. IEEE Transaction on Professional Communication, 47(2), 95–104. Daim, T. U., Ha, A., Reutiman, S., Hughes, B., Pathak, U., Bynum, W., & Bhatla, A. (2012). Exploring the communication breakdown in global virtual teams. International Journal of Project Management, 30(2), 199–212. Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16, 290–307. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4). Johnson, S. D., Suriya, C., Yoon, S. W., Berrett, J. V., & La Fleur, J. (2002). Team development and group processes of virtual learning teams. Computers & Education, 39(4), 379–393. Klitmøller, A., & Lauring, J. (2013). When global virtual teams share knowledge: Media richness, cultural difference and language commonality. Journal of World Business, 48(3), 398–406. Robey, D., Khoo, H. M., & Powers, C. (2000). Situated learning in cross-functional virtual teams. Technical Communication, 47(1), 51–66. Sarker, S., Ahuja, M., Sarker, S., & Kirkeby, S. (2011). The role of communication and trust in global virtual teams: A social network perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(1), 273–310. Webster, J., & Wong, W. K. P. (2008). Comparing traditional and virtual group forms: Identity, communication and trust in naturally occurring project teams. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1), 41–62. Yoon, S. W., & Johnson, S. D. (2008). Phases and patterns of group development in virtual learning teams. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5-6), 595–618.

Articles on Cultural Aspects of Virtual Teams Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L., (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition, distinctiveness, and nomological network. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 3–15). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Chang, H. H., Chuang, S. S., & Chao, S. H. (2011). Determinants of cultural adaptation, communication quality, and trust in virtual teams’ performance. Total Quality Management, 22(3), 305–329.

Resources •

189

Chiu, Y. T., & Staples, D. S. (2013). Reducing faultlines in geographically dispersed teams: Self-disclosure and task elaboration. Small Group Research, 44(5), 498–526. Chua, R. Y., Morris, M. W., & Mor, S. (2012). Collaborating across cultures: Cultural metacognition and affect-based trust in creative collaboration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(2), 116–131. Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2014). An embedded model of cultural adaptation in global teams. Organization Science. 25(4), 1056–1081. Krumm, S., Terwiel, K., & Hertel, G. (2013). Challenges in norm formation and adherence: The knowledge, skills, and ability requirements of virtual and traditional cross-cultural teams. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12(1), 33–44. Mockaitis, A. I., Rose, E. L., & Zettinig, P. (2012). The power of individual cultural values in global virtual teams. Cross Cultural Management, 12(2), 193–210.

Articles on Management Issues Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Baker, B. (2014). E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 105–131. Chang, W., & Lee, C. (2013). Virtual team e-leadership: The effects of leadership style and conflict management mode on the online learning performance of students in a business-planning course. British Journal of Education Technology, 44(6), 986–999. Eissa, G., Fox, C., Webster, B. D., & Kim J. (2012). A framework for leader effectiveness in virtual teams. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 9, 11–22. Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, W. J. S. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 390–403. Jawadi, N. (2013). E-leadership and trust management: Exploring the moderating effects of team virtuality. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction (IJTHI), 9(3), 18–35. Leonard, B. (2011, June 1). Managing virtual teams. Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/publications/hrmagazine/editorialcontent/2011/0611/pages/0611leonard.aspxx Lilian, S. C. (2014). Virtual teams: Opportunities and challenges for e-leaders. Procedia— Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110, 1251–1261. Lin, C., Chiu, C., Joe, S., & Tasi, Y. (2010). Assessing online learning ability from a social exchange perspective: A survey of virtual teams within business organizations. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(9), 849–867. Verburg, R. M., Bosch-Sijtsema, P., & Vartiainen, M. (2013). Getting it done: Critical success factors for project managers in virtual work settings. International Journal of Project Management, 31(1), 68–79. White, M. (2014). The management of virtual teams and virtual meetings. Business Information Review, 31(2), 111–117. Zander, L., Zettinig, P., & Makela, K. (2013). Leading global virtual teams to success. Organizational Dynamics, 42(3), 228–237. Ziek, P., & Smulowitz, S. (2014). The impact of emergent virtual leadership competencies on team effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(2), 106–120.

190

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Articles on Technology Use Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organization information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. Flammia, M., Cleary, Y., & Slattery, D. M. (2007, September/October). Technology use and communication strategies of Irish and US students in virtual teams. Paper presented at the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, Seattle, Washington. Shachaf, P. (2008). Cultural diversity and information and communication technology impacts on global virtual teams: An exploratory study. Information & Management, 45(2), 131–142. Sivunen, A., & Valo, M. (2006). Team leaders’ technology choice in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49(1), 57–68. Timmerman, C. E., & Scott, C. R. (2006). Virtually working: Communicative and structural predictors of media use and key outcomes in virtual work teams. Communication Monographs, 73(1), 108–136.

Articles on Virtual Communities Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183–190. Andrews, D., & Starke-Meyerring, D. (2005, August). Making connections: An intercultural virtual team project in professional communication. Paper presented at the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, Limerick, Ireland. Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64–77. Bower M. (2011). Synchronous collaboration competencies in web-conferencing environments—their impact on the learning process. Distance Education, 32(1), 63–83. Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872–1888. Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2004). Building trust in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47(2), 95–104. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105. Grant, M., & Cheon, J. (2007). The value of using synchronous conferencing for instruction and students. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3), 211–226. Hobbs, H. H., & Chernotsky H. I. (2007, February). Preparing students for global citizenship. Paper presented at the American Political Science Conference, Charlotte, NC. Iacono, C. S., & Weisband, S. (1997, January). Developing trust in virtual teams. Paper presented at the 13th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Wailea, HI. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29–64.

Resources •

191

Lin, C., Standing, C., & Liu, Y.-C. (2008). A model to develop effective virtual teams. Decision Support Systems, 45(4), 1031–1045. Sadri, H. A., & Flammia, M. (2009). Using technology to prepare students for the challenges of global citizenship. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics, 7(5), 66–71.

Articles that Report on Student Virtual Teams Andrews, D., & Starke-Meyerring, D. (2005, August). Making connections: An intercultural virtual team project in professional communication. Paper presented at the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, Limerick, Ireland. Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2004). Building trust in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47(2), 95–104. Fan, K. T., Chen, Y. H., Wang, C. W., & Chen, M. (2014). E-leadership effectiveness in virtual teams: Motivating language perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(3), 421–437. Flammia, M., Cleary, Y., & Slattery, D. (2010). Leadership roles, socioemotional communication strategies, and technology use of Irish and US students in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53(2), 89–101. Iacono, C. S., & Weisband, S. (1997, January). Developing trust in virtual teams. Paper presented at the 13th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Wailea, HI. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29–64. Lin, C., Standing, C., & Liu, Y.-C. (2008). A model to develop effective virtual teams. Decision Support Systems, 45(4), 1031–1045. Lisak, A., & Erez, M. (2015). Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics. Journal of World Business, 50(1), 3–14. Sudweeks, F., & Simoff, S. J. (2005). Leading conversations: Communication behaviours of emergent leaders in virtual teams. In J. F. Nunamaker & R. F. Briggs (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (108a). IEEE Computer Society Press.

WEBSITES FOR PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS • ACM Management of Information Systems SIG (SIGMIS), http://sigmis.org/ • American Management Association, http://www.amanet.org/ • American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), http://www.asee.org/ • Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), http://www.acm.org/ • Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), http://www.aace.org/ • IEEE Education Society, http://ieee-edusociety.org//

192

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

• IEEE PCS (IEEE Professional Communication Society), http://sites.ieee.org/pcs/ • International Communication Association (ICA), https://www.icahdq.org/ • International Society for Business Education (SIEC-ISBE), http://www.siec-isbe.org/ • National Business Education Association (NBEA), https://www.nbea.org/ CULTURAL ASSESSMENT WEBSITES AND TOOLS • Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI), http://ccaiassess.com/ The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) is a self-assessment tool that is designed to identify an individual’s or a group’s ability to adapt to new situations, people, and customs. A self-scored profile identifies strengths and weaknesses in four areas essential to effective intercultural communication: • • • •

Emotional Resilience Flexibility/Openness Perceptual Acuity Personal Autonomy

The CCAI is used extensively by corporate trainers and educators in study abroad preparation, pre-departure training, diversity programs, and university classes on cross-cultural issues. • Global Perspective Inventory, http://www.gpi.hs.iastate.edu/ The Global Perspective Inventory was developed to determine how individuals view themselves based on their cultural heritage. It is often used to provide evidence of students’ global perspectives and experiences both pre- or post-study abroad. • National Center for Cultural Competence (NCCC), http://nccc.georgetown.edu/foundations/assessment.html The NCCC offers a number of resources and tools that can help organizations and their personnel to self-assess their levels of cultural competence and awareness. • Peterson Cultural Style Indicator, http://acrosscultures.com/peterson-cultural-style-indicator/ The Peterson Cultural Style Indicator is a tool that consists of 25 questions and takes 20–30 minutes to complete. It is designed to provide insight into how an individual’s cultural style might affect his/her professional relationships, decision

Resources •

193

making, and management style when interacting with people from more than 70 countries. COLLABORATIVE SOFTWARE TOOLS The list of collaborative software tools provided here is not definitive and comprises tools used by the authors and/or their students for virtual teamwork. Furthermore, some tools listed under certain categories can be used for other purposes also, such as blogging or photo sharing. Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) • Blackboard Learn, http://uki.blackboard.com/learning-management-system/blackboardlearn.aspx • Moodle, https://moodle.org/ • Sakai, https://www.sakaiproject.org/ Audio- and Videoconferencing Tools • Adobe Connect web conferencing software facilitates collaboration projects and webinars. http://www.adobe.com/ie/products/adobeconnect.html • AnyMeeting facilitates audio- and videoconferencing, as well as webinars. https://www.anymeeting.com/ • Blackboard Collaborate is an online collaboration platform that offers web conferencing, mobile collaboration, and instant messaging facilities. http:// www.blackboard.com/Platforms/Collaborate/Overview.aspx • Google Hangouts facilitates audio- and videoconference calls as well as group conversations. http://www.google.com/+/learnmore/hangouts/ • GoToMeeting facilitates audio- and videoconferencing, screen sharing, and personal meeting rooms. http://www.gotomeeting.com/online/ • Skype enables users to make video chat and voice calls from computers, tablets, and mobile devices via the Internet to other devices or telephones/ smartphones. https://www.skype.com • Twiddla facilitates audioconferencing, whiteboard sharing, and file sharing. http://www.twiddla.com/ • WebEx offers videoconferencing and screen sharing. http://www.webex.com/ Collaborative Authoring Tools • Blogger is a blogging tool that can be used to share text, photos, and video. https://www.blogger.com/home

194

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

• Google Docs is an online word processor that enables users to create and format text documents and collaborate with other people in real time. Several users can work at the same time, and all changes to documents are saved automatically. Google Docs is part of suite of productivity tools that includes the ability to create, edit, and share documents, spreadsheets, and presentations that can be accessed and edited offline or online and shared to one or to many. http://www.google.com/docs • Jing can be used to share images and videos and to create screencasts—for example, demonstrations of how something works on-screen. https://www.techsmith.com/jing.html • Prezi is useful for collaboratively creating and delivering online presentations. http://www.prezi.com • Twitter is a social media website that enables users to post brief messages or “tweets” no longer that 140 characters. http://www.twitter.com • Wikispaces Classroom is a social writing platform where multiple authors can simultaneously view and edit documents. https://www.wikispaces.com/ • Wordpress can be used to create a blog or website. http://www.wordpress.com File Sharing and Other Tools • Basecamp is a web-based project management tool that provides users with to-do lists, file sharing, chatting, messages, calendars, and time tracking. Team leaders can use Basecamp to manage all aspects of a project including creating project milestones, assigning tasks, sending reminders to team members, and tracking the hours worked on the project. Users are given login credentials that enable them to see only the information that is relevant to them. One limitation is that the free version of Basecamp only allows users to create one project. https://basecamp.com/ • Citeulike is used to manage and share references online. http://www.citeulike.org/ • Delicious can be used to discover, share, and manage online links. https://delicious.com/ • Doodle is an online scheduling tool that can be used by teams to find a date and time to meet. One team member suggests dates and times for team members to choose from, then Doodle creates a polling calendar that can be sent to the team for feedback. As individuals select the dates and times from the polling calendar when they are free, Doodle aggregates the responses and indicates which option works best for everyone. https://doodle.com/ • Dropbox is a cloud-based automatic file-syncing service that gives users access to the files in their Dropbox on any computer or mobile device and

Resources •

• • •

• •

• • • • •

• • •

195

on the web. This service is particularly valuable for collaboration because it enables users to create shared folders, and updates made to the files within the shared folder by one user will automatically be updated across all the other users’ computers and mobile devices. https://www.dropbox.com/ Flickr can be used to access, organize, and share photos. http://www.flickr.com Google Drive is used to store and access all types of files in the cloud. http://www.google.com/drive/ iDone is a simple tool that requests evening updates from each team member and sends the digest to everyone the following day. https://idonethis.com/ Mendeley can be used to cite, manage, and share references online. https://www.mendeley.com/ Microsoft Project enables team members to collaborate and manage tasks. It enables team leaders to analyze resources, budgets, and schedules. The tool aids team leaders in measuring progress and anticipating resource needs. https://products.office.com/en-us/project/project-and-portfoliomanagement-software Mindmeister is a collaborative brainstorming and presentation tool. https:// www.mindmeister.com/ Padlet can be used for sharing resources with others and for creating reports and portfolios. https://padlet.com/ Popplet is useful for brainstorming and mind mapping. http://popplet.com/ Slideshare enables users to upload and share PowerPoint presentations, Word documents, and PDF documents. http://www.slideshare.net/ Sqwiggle is browser-based group video chat that sends photo snapshots throughout the day to keep team members connected. It enables secure file upload and uses minimal bandwidth. Sqwiggle enables instant chat. https://www.sqwiggle.com/ Vimeo can be used to share videos with others. https://vimeo.com YouTube is used to host and share user-generated videos. https://www.youtube.com/ Zotero enables users to collect, organize, cite, and share links. https://www.zotero.org/ VIRTUAL TEAM GAME

• Prelude 2.0 is a creative trust game for virtual teams that is designed to facilitate the development of trust and to enhance collaboration. The game gives team members a chance to get to know one another and to practice the skills they will need to use when collaborating before they actually begin their team project. The game can also be used by teams that are already collaborating to revitalize their relationships. As a result of playing

196

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

the game, team members will be more aware of their strengths and will be better prepared to work together and make the most of their unique skills and talents. http://www.playprelude.com

SUBJECT INDEX

A

B

Abbreviations, 42 Accent, 30, 47, 48, 106–107 Access, 49, 152, 179 Acronyms, 20 Adjourning stage, 34, 44, 137–138 Adobe Connect, 48, 193 AnyMeeting, 48, 193 Archive, 51,52, 65, 109, 123, 128 Aristotle, 31, 32 Assessment, 12 Assignments, 134 Attitudes, 9, 58, 94, 111 Attribution theory, 75–76 Audio, 41, 47, 48, 55 Audiovisual personnel, 19 Audience, 3, 31, 42,176, 179

Bennett, Milton J., 98 Best practices, 12 faculty, 12, 129 students, 12, 121 technology, 55 Blackboard, 46, 48, 193 Blog, 51, 57, 66, 79, 135, 139, 178, 179, 180, 193, 194 Broadband connections, 48 C Channel, 31, 32, 37, 38, 43 Chat Rooms, 50 Checklists Skills, 11, 21–22, 122 Coaching (see Mentoring) Code (communication theory), 27, 29, 32

Virtual Teams in Higher Education: A Handbook for Students and Teachers, pages 197–203. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 197

198

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Codes of behavior/conduct (culture), 91, 92, 94 Cohesion (team/group), 17, 20, 22, 64, 66, 69, 72, 79, 90, 98, 102, 105, 126–127, 145–146 Cohesion (text), 181 Collaborative authoring, 47, 51, 56, 193 Collaborative projects (faculty), 131 Collocated (Definition of), 15 Colloquialisms, 20 Common ground, 110 Communication components of, 26–28, 31 challenges, 11, 19, 21, 25, 53, 103 definition, 25, 26 group, 31 guidelines, 22, 43, 59 interpersonal, 26–28, 31, 43 lines of, 11 miscommunication, 11, 26, 30–31, 41, 48, 53, 105–106, 129 models, 27, 31–32 preferences, 18 procedural, 38 strategies, 20 socioemotional, 18, 38 Communication styles, 9, 47, 53, 77, 88, 98, 106–107, 109, 113–114, 116–117 direct/indirect, 103 elaborate/exact/succinct, 104 instrumental/affective, 104 personal/contextual, 105 Communication theory, 25, 26 Communicators, 13, 26, 28, 31, 32, 37 Community of inquiry, 148–150 factors influencing success, 150 Communities of practice, 12–13, 34, 143, 178 benefits of, 146 critiques of, 147 features of, 144 Computer screens, 41 Conflict, 9, 19, 125 development of, 39–40 managing, 40, 73 resolution, 19, 76, 107 technology, 40

types of, 39 Context, 27, 96, 176–178 Contexting, 97 Corporate culture (see Organizational culture) Coordination tools, 65 Culture, 8, 9, 12 awareness, 17, 112, 114, 176 communication, 9, 25, 29, 43 intelligence, 77 knowledge sharing, 9 leadership, 9 misunderstandings, 9, 42 national, 4, 9, 27, 29, 31, 61, 73, 85, 86–88, 95–96, 100, 108, 115, 116 sensitivity, 78 understanding, 20 D Deadlines, 11, 13, 53, 70, 86, 115, 121, 134, 138, 182, 184 Decision making, 6,19, 41 Decoder, 32 Decoding, 28 Degree of acceptance of leadership style, 95 Degree of identification with your organization, 95 Designers, 19, 34 Disciplinary culture, 87 Differences, 17, 20, 29, 30 Discussion forums, 47, 49 Diversity, 9, 47, 50 DMIS (Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity), 98 Document sharing, 41, 46 E Easygoing work discipline versus strict work discipline, 94 Editors, 19 Effort, 20 E-learning, 3, 153–156

Subject Index Email, 7, 30, 40, 46–50, 52, 62, 83, 107, 109, 113, 115, 127, 128, 133, 140, 179, 180, 182, 184 Emergent leaders, 82 Emoticons, 42, 50 Empathy, 28, 29, 44, 79, 125, 140 Employee-oriented versus work-oriented, 95 Encoding, 48 Evaluation, 12, 41, 59, 63, 80, 132, 142 Explanation, 28 Exploration, 34 F Face-to-face teams, 8, 16, 122, 137, 149 Facial expressions, 30–31, 40–42, 48, 53 Faculty best practices, 121 Feedback, 7, 13, 20, 138 communication theory, 27, 28, 32 communities, 150 culture, 114 manager, 69, 72, 74, 79, 80, 81, 84 student, 13, 181 team, 20, 68, 116, 123, 125, 127, 154, 155, 181, technology, 39, 44, 46, 106, 194 File management, 17, 22 File sharing, 46, 47, 51, 134, 179, 182, 197, 198, Fixed-line phones, 50 Five-stage model of learning, 151 Flaming, 42, 50, 53 Forming stage, 33, 135 Functional culture (see Disciplinary culture) G Geographically dispersed, 6, 9, 15, 66, 74, 139 Gestures, 31, 40, 48, 97, 106 Global citizenship, 12, 144, 149, 151, 152, 156 Global identity, 73 Goals, 6, 11, 16, 18, 36, 38, 57–59, 61–62, 64, 108, 110–112, 115, 117,122–125

•

199

Google Docs, 47, 179, 194 Google Hangouts, 48, 193 Google Talk, 50 GoToMeeting, 48, 52, 193 Grading schemes, 134 Graphic designers, 19 Group cohesion, 18, 65, 67, 72, 98, 102, 128–129,148, 149 Group development, 31 critics of, 35 stages of, 33–35, 138 Group identity, 116 Guidelines, 43, 64 Guidelines for the use of technology, 8 H Hall, Edward T., 96 Hand signals, 31 Hiberno (Irish) English, 30 Hofstede, Geert, 89 Humor, 20 I Icebreaker questions, 48 ICTs (see information and communication technologies) Identity, 31, 35, 100 community, 144, 147 cultural, 36, 101 global, 73, 82, 84 individual, 99–100, 144 professional, 35 team (group), 68, 72, 73, 75, 84, 110, 112 Individualism/Collectivism dimension, 89 Indulgence/restraint dimension, 93 Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), 4–6, 47, 63 Informal chat, 20 Infrastructural constraints, 54 In-groups, 10, 35, 39, 100–101, 116 Initial formation (group development), 33 Initiative (skills and traits), 18, 19, 22, 116, 123 Instant messaging, 47, 50, 69, 193

200

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Instructors, 17, 49, 55, 132, 139, 150 Intercultural communication, 11, 12, 31, 16, 21, 22, 47, 78–79, 87–88, 96–98, 100–102, 126, 141 assessments, 114 competence, 88 conflicts, 112, 126 definition of, 88 mindfulness, 113 sensitivity, 77, 98, 99, 101 study of, 85, 88, 96–97, 100, 113 tools for, 47 understanding of, 12, 79, 135, 138, 140 Intercultural training, 113 Internally driven versus externally driven, 94 Interpersonal skills, 25, 31 definition, 26 Intonation, 31 Irony, 20 J Jargon, 20, 30, 126, 146 Jing, 51, 194 Journal (reflective), 135 K Knowledge, 13 creation, 6, 9, 12–13, 55, 143 management, 66, 67, 108 sharing, 9, 11–12, 36, 60, 62, 64–66, 107–109, 143, 148 L Language, 4, 19, 27, 29, 30, 32, 39, 48, 53, 103–106, 140, 144, 148, 179, 180, 184 body, 30, 31, 53, 78 culture, 86–87, 89, 138 empathetic, 59, 62, 72, native, 7 second (non-native), 107 Leadership, 3, 9, 18, 20, 39, 40, 58, 59, 82–84, 180, 184, 184 culture, 93, 95, 107

challenges, 12 conflict, 73 responsibilities, 42, 62, 69, 70, 72, 77, 122, 136 skills, 153 students, 183–184 types of, 80 Leak, 27 Leakage, 37 Lean media, 7–9, 40–41, 43, 46, 63, 64, 106–107, 109, 127, 134, 147 Learning outcomes, 135 Linear model of communication, 27, 28, 31 Listening, 28, 30 Local versus professional, 94 Lurkers, 49 M Masculinity/femininity dimension, 91 Maletzke, 32–33 Management, 8 Manager, 8, 19, 21, 39, 41 challenges, 12, 57 file, 17 skills, 17 Means-oriented versus goal-oriented, 94 Medium, 27, 32 Media choice, 27, 42 Media richness theory, 37, 40, 42, 46, 65, 106 Mentoring, 71 Microblogging, 51 Mindfulness, 28–29, 113, 156 Mindlessness, 29 Misunderstandings, 9, 16, 39, 42, 53, 73–75, 88, 102, 113, 116, 148 Mobile phone, 50 Moodle, 46, 193 Multimodality, 41 Mutual support, 20 N National culture, 85 Native English speakers, 20

Subject Index Nazi propaganda, 31 Netiquette, 42, 50, 53, 126, 129 Noise, 28, 32 Non-native English speakers, 20 Nonverbal cues, 7, 9, 27–28, 37–38, 40, 46, 49, 64, 97, 103, 105, 106 Norming stage, 33, 44, 137

•

201

Proximity, 16, 30 Punctuation, 30 Q Quality assurance personnel, 19 R

O One-way communication, 28, 32, 46, 53 Online discussion, 41, 42, 74, 128, 134, 150 Organizational culture, 86 Open system versus closed system, 95 Opening and closing, 28 Optimism (traits), 18, 22 Orientation, 34, 37, 90, 92, 94, 112, 140 Out-groups, 9, 100, 116 P Pace, 30, 40, 43 Paralinguistic features, 40 Performing stage, 33–34, 138 Personality, 32, 33, 35, 36, 41, 74, 75, 76, 81–83 Peterson Cultural Styles Indicator, 114, 192 Phones, 48, 50, 193 Politeness, 42 Power distance dimension, 90 Pragmatic/normative dimension, 92 Praise, 20, 126 Prezi, 51, 194 Procedural communication, 38 Product development teams, 19 Professional identity, 35 Progress check and evaluation, 34 Project life cycle, 8, 35, 58, 135 planning, 59 starting, 59 working, 68 wrapping-up, 79 Project managers, 17–18 Project review (faculty), 135 Prototype developers, 19

Receiver (communication theory), 27–28, 31–33 Refinement or putting together, 35 Religion, 100 religious beliefs, 126 religious differences, 17, 21, 112 religious holidays, 21, 52 Research (faculty), 141 Researchers (team roles), 19 Rewards, 17, 59, 61,63, 72, 81, 91, 92, 127, 134, 139 Rich media, 7–8, 55, 63, 106–107, 109, 136 Routines of communication, 7–8, 64, 66, 68, 71, 79, 91, 115, 117 RSS feeds, 28 S Sakai, 46, 178, 193 Scheduling, 10, 34, 52, 60, 136, 194 Self-managed teams, 82 Self-concept, 35 Self-disclosure, 7, 28–29, 38, 44, 66, 100–102 Self-esteem, 35, 100, 110–111 Sender (communication theory), 27, 28, 31, 33 Shannon and Weaver’s model, 27, 31, 32 Shared mental models, 68, 109, 112, 115–117 Silence, 20, 30, 37, 39, 104, 126 Skype, 48, 133, 179, 193 Slang, 20, 126 Slides, 46, 52 Slideshare, 52, 195 Smart phone, 180 SMS messages, 40

202

• VIRTUAL TEAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Social identity theory, 31, 35, 100, 147 Social groups, 35, 100 Social media, 28, 41, 66, 153, 194 Social presence, 18, 64, 148, 149 Social space, 66 Socioemotional communication, 18, 33, 37–38, 127, 133, 137, 149, 151, 188 Speed of response, 30 Spelling, 30 Stereotyping, 10, 96, 100, 101, 106 Storming stage, 33 Subject-matter experts, 19 Suspension of uncertainty, 38 Swift trust, 37, 101, 123–125 T Task ambiguity, 43 Task complexity, 54 Task conflict, 6 Task-oriented communication, 18, 20, 122–123, 125–127, 129 Teams, 17 communication strategies, 18, 42 coordination, 19 conflict, 125 cultural, 20, 43, 125 feedback, 20 formations, 134–135 goals, 17, 42, 70, 115, 122, 124 guidelines, 43 high-trust vs. low trust, 20 information sharing, 18 meetings, 68 reflexivity, 39 roles, 18, 19, 122, 126, 183 skills, 19, 22, 28 technology, 41, 42, 45, 48, 134 temporary, 37, 123 trust, 124 virtual vs. face to face, 26, 46, 58 Teamwork quality, 19 Technical writers/communicators, 19, 175, 176–179, 181, 185 Technology, 7–8 availability, 18 challenges, 45, 49–50

implementation, 21 selection, 11, 22, 42, 45, 63 Telephone, 31, 32, 40, 47–48, 71, 134, 139, 141, 150, 189, 193 Telephone conversation, 40, 41 Termination, 35 Text, 41 Texting (as in SMS), 41, 50 ‘Third ways’ of working, 114 Time management, 20 Time zones, 10, 21, 46, 49, 52, 55, 56, 121 Tone of voice, 20, 30, 31, 40, 106 Tools, 46–47 Transactional leadership, 80–81 Transformational leadership, 81–82 Transcript, 50, 53, 179 Translators, 175–186 Transmitter (communication theory), 28, 31–32 Trust, 7, 8, 17, 18–19, 25, 29, 33, 36 communication, 39 communities of practice, 147–149 culture, 100, 101,102–104, 106–107 faculty, 133, 137, 138, 140–141 leaders, 58–62, 67, 71, 73–75, 77, 80, 82–84 requirements of, 37 teams, 117, 122–128 types of, 36–37, 83 Twitter, 51, 194 Two-way communication, 27–28 Typography, 30 U Uncertainty avoidance dimension, 91 University of Central Florida, 3, 175 University of Limerick, 3, 175 Université Paris Diderot, 3, 175 V Verbal communication, 9, 29, 37, 103, 105 Video, 41, 46, 52 Videoconferencing (also web conferencing), 40, 41, 47, 48 Vimeo, 195

Subject Index Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs), 46–47, 48–49, 51, 134, 153, 155, 193 Virtual team definition of, 4 benefits, 5–6 challenges, 6–11, 16, 31 communication, 6, 28, 30, 33 composition of, 15 cultural, 9 global, 15 logistical, 10 management, 8 technology, 8, 49 versus face-to-face, 4, 36, 39 Visual language (cues), 30, 46, 48, 50, 53

•

203

W Web 2.0, 28, 148, 182 WebEx, 48, 63, 193 Wikis (Wikispaces), 46, 51, 153, 179, 194 Work and decision, 34 Workplace, 5 Y YouTube, 52, 195 Z Zotero, 52, 195