Virtual Teams, Volume 8 (Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams)

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Vikas Anand

University of Arkansas,Fayetteville, AR, USA

Betty J. Barrett

MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, Cambridge,MA, USA

Anita D. Bhappu

SouthernMethodist University, Dallas, TX, USA

Janice A. Black

College of BusinessAdministration & Economics, Las Cruces,NM, USA

Richard Durst

Institute of Industrial Engineeringand Ergonomics,Aachen University of Technology,Aachen,Germany

Sandra Edwards

NortheasternStateUniversity, Tehlequah, OK, USA

Rama Kaye Hart

Ithaca College, Departmentof Organizational Communication, Learningand Design, Ithaca, NY, USA

Lisk Horvath

GeorgeWashingtonUniversity, Washington, D.C., USA

Dirk Kabel

Institute of Industrial Engineering and Ergonomics,Aachen University of Technology,Aachen,Germany

Janice A. Klein

MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, Cambridge,MA, USA

Kathi J. Lovelace

University of Massachusetts,Friday Harbor, WA, USA

Dina Mansour-Cole

Indiana University, Purdue,Fort Wayne,IN, USA vii

..

Vlll

Charles C. Manz

University of Massachusetts,Amherst, MA, USA

Christopher

Virginia Polytechnic and StateUniversity, Blacksburg,VA, USA

I? Neck

Jill E. Nemiro

California StatePolytechnic University, Pomona,CA, USA

i’?mothy J. Tobin

Centerfor the Study of Learning,Ashbum, VA, USA

Duane Windsor

Rice University, Houston,TX, USA

Mary Zellmer-Bruhn

University of Minnesota,Minneapolis, MN, USA

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The chapters in this volume grew out of presentations given at the eighth annual University of North Texas Symposium on Individual, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness. However, another key part of the Symposium consisted of the discussant remarks by representatives of business. Discussants typically talked with the authors and often read early drafts of their papers before the Symposium. Discussants were charged with sharing ways in which their companies were applying the concepts presented by the authors. The Center for the Study of Work Teams has always considered bridging of the gap between the academic and practice worlds a mission to be pursued at each conference event. The success of that bridging is primarily due to the efforts of the discussants. Therefore, we acknowledge their important contribution to the Symposium and to the authors’ thinking about the concepts in their papers from a practical frame of reference. The discussants and their affiliations at that time for the Eighth Symposium were: Beth Baldwin, Nortel Networks Sue Freedman, Knowledge Work Associates Vashti Ring, Intria Jer$my Lurey, Arthur Andersen Frank Mancuso, Shell Oil Company Robert Romano, Boeing Ron Shenberger, Well Formed Outcomes Lonnie Thomas, Boeing Marian Wagner, FEMA Scott Wayland, Stanley Works Finally, we want to acknowledge the help and support of Nancy Gorman and Melanie Bullock. For seven volumes in this series, Melanie has been responsible for communicating with authors, discussants, and editors, arranging for flow of manuscripts back and forth among these people, educating all of us on manuscript format, maintaining the relationship with the publisher, arranging for proofing, catching the errors the editors miss and bringing the chapters, introtluction, and preface together in a final assembly to complete a ix

X

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

whole for the publisher. Every year she has taken on more responsibility and leadership on the volumes in this series. In addition, she organized and oversaw all of the logistics of the Symposium events. Her contributions to this volume have addressed every aspect of process and form, and her consideration and dependability have been the key to having good relationships with the authors and the publisher. This year, Melanie handed off these responsibilities to Nancy who has made a gallant effort to pick up the load in mid-stream. Nancy has done an outstanding job under significant time pressure to puI1 the pieces together into a carefully prepared manuscript. Much of the quality in appearance for this volume is due to her thoughtful work.

ABOUT THE EDITORS Michael Beyerlein is Director of the Center for the Study of Work Teams (www. workteams. unt.e&) and Professor of Industrial/Organizational Psychology at the University of North Texas. His research interests include all aspects of collaborative work systems, organization transformation, work stress, creativity/innovation, knowledge management and the learning organization, and complex adaptive systems. He has published in a number of research journals and has been a member of the editorial boards for TEAM Magazine and Quality Management Journal. Currently, he is senior editor of the JAI Press/Elsevier annual series of books Advances in Interdisciplinary Study of Work Teams. He is also organizing the launch of a new series of books for Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer on collaborative work systems. In addition, he has been co-editor with Steve Jones on two ASTD case books about teams and edited a book on the global history of teams, Work teams: Past, Present and Future. He has been involved in change projects at the Center for the Study of Work Teams with such companies as Boeing, Shell, NCH, AMD, Westinghouse, and Xerox and with government agencies such as Veterans Affairs, DCMAO, EPA, and the City of Denton. Douglas A. Johnson is director of the Industrial/Organizational psychology doctbral program, professor of psychology, and associate director of the Center for the Study of Work Teams, University of North Texas. Doug has published research in a variety of areas, ranging from leadership and job satisfaction to operant conditioning and interpersonal attraction. He co-founded and served as president of the Dallas-Fort Worth Organizational Psychology Group, and participated in the creation of the Dallas office of the I/O psychology consulting firm, Personnel Decisions International, with whom he works on a part-time basis. Susan T. Beyerlein has taught undergraduate and MBA management courses at Our Lady of the Lake University and Texas Woman’s University in the Dallas area. Susan has served as a research project manager with the Center for the Study of Work Teams andas a research scientist with the Center for Public Management at the University of North Texas. She continues to be an ad hoc xi

xii

ABOUT

THE EDITORS

reviewer for the Academy of Management Review. She is currently working on several edited book projects.

INTRODUCTION This preface introduces volume 8 in the annual series Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams. Each volume focuses on a specific topic in the study of teams. This volume focuses on the issue of virtual teams. The chapters presented here are based on presentations in the team track at the Eighth Annual University of North Texas Symposium on Individual, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness. Virtual teams, also known as distributed or non-co-located teams, are not new. People have collaborated over long distances for many years. However, the availability of the intemet during the past few years has added new technical capabilities to the sharing of information and enabled a better simulation of face-to-face contact. As work has become more complex, an increasing need to bring together disparate types of expertise from distant places has emerged. Knowledge work done in project teams has become a dominant form of organizing for professional, managerial and technical workers. Knowledge work done over long distances has also become more common. It is not unusual to have a team of a half dozen people working together on a project from six different time zones. All of the challenges of forming and developing an effective project team that has co-located members apply to virtual teams. However, virtual teams, relybg heavily on electronic forms of communication, have additional challenges to overcome. The chapters in this volume of Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams identify the conditions, challenges, competencies, and solutions that apply in the case of virtual teams.

CHAPTER OVERVIEWS In the opening chapter of this volume, Duane Windsor provides a comprehensive analysis of conditions and issues surrounding research and practice of globally networked virtual teams - elastic networks of globally distributed knowledge workers linked by increasingly sophisticated communications technologies. The need to develop competencies in this form of work arises ... x111

INTRODUCTION from the globalization of business, the information revolution, improved technology, and increased marketplace competition. If a customer in Singapore needs a solution that requires input from experts in six countries, the project manager links the experts together. The question remains: how to do that effectively. The technology is an enabler, but does not seem to have advanced far enough to make electronic communications as effective as face-to-face meetings. Windsor’s paper provides a framework within which the other papers in the book may be organized as ways of filling in the details of the map. Dina Mansour-Cole’s paper suggests that the essence of the organization is within the mind and heart of the worker. She uses the framework of social identity theory to identify both the personal importance of a cognitive and emotional links to the organization and the social context within which work takes place. The use of social identity as an organizer for information about virtual team behavior seems especially pertinent for cyberspace collaboration where the bricks-and-mortar organization seems almost nonexistent. Social identity theory suggests that the individual has a conceptual image of the organization to connect to. This idea grows out of the cognitive revolution in psychology where the key assumption is that reality consists of what is perceived, not what is objective. This framework and the individuality of virtual team members suggests approaches for team leaders that may help to produce member solidarity, cooperation and unity of actions and values. What can team designers, team leaders, and managers do to help virtual teams realize their creativity? Jill Nemiro details the work environment necessary for creativity in virtual teams in chapter three. She has conducted studies and developed a model which includes three key components necessary for virtual team creativity: connection, raw materials, and management/team member skills. Creativity appears to be highest at the intersection of these three components. Since, personal relationship formation is one of the most important processes in organizations, Rama Kaye Bhalla has focused her chapter on peer relationships in geographically dispersed teams. She views personal relationships as comprised of the small, everyday acts. There is no question that such acts and the relationships built on them occur and play a central role for colocated workers. However, we have yet to identify the role played with virtual teams. if relationship building is far more difficult electronically, how will that impact the quality of work? How can the problem be addressed? Such issues as support structure, willingness to take risks in sharing knowledge, demonstrating creativity and exemplifying leadership may be impacted. Some

lntmduction

xv

studies show that personal relationships may be the key differentiating high and low levels of performance. Bhalla presents a framework for addressing this problem. In chapter five, Members of virtual teams live in different parts of the organization or different organizations. Jan Klein and Betty Barrett have written about the conflict that results from this difference - local versus global influences in chapter five. The team members may be committed to a project and feel that they belong to a team, even though it is geographically dispersed. However, at the local level, their peers and managers may not understand the value of the project and the role the virtual team member plays. As a consequence, the local group may pressure the virtual team member to minimize time spent on the project and to focus more attention on local responsibilities. They conclude that attempts can be made to align global and local objectives and priorities and that can help to ease the inevitable tensions. Janice Black and Sandra Edwards view virtual teams as a new organizing form for work. They have chosen complexity systems theory as a framework for delineating a new set of organizing rules to fit this new form. Complexity theory with its variants, chaos theory, nonlinear dynamics, and complex adaptive systems, deals with the problem of finding order in apparently chaotic systems. Complex, dynamic systems, such as exemplified by the intellectual and social activities of a knowledge team, exceed the grasp of more traditional perspectives that capture only linear relationships. Creative work apparently occurs at the edge of chaos. Few management theories have addressed this elusive phenomenon, but more writers are arguing that competitive advantage lies in mastering that zone of interaction. Virtual teams working in that zone shoujd be enabled by a few rules to guide activity, but encumbered by as few rules as possible. Knowledge work with creativity and innovation as its goal is always complex. In a virtual teaming arrangement with participants from a multitude of cultures, the complexity is magnified considerably. Anita D. Bhappu, Mary Zellmer-Bruhn, and Vikas Anand address the issue that such diversity of expertise and cultural background creates. With team members high on both differentiated knowledge and high on cultural diversity, the potential for conflict and process losses grows. However, visual cues during face-to-face interaction often communicate cultural differences that may be transparent in virtual teaming. Consequently, there -is a possibility that some globally distributed work ought to be done virtually, to minimize the need to work through cultural differences. However, that benefit is offset somewhat by the difficulty team -members have in understanding and appreciating the technical

INTRODUCTION

expertise other members bring to the work and the consequent synthesis of knowledge into creative solutions. That level of knowledge integration still seems to require face-to-face meetings on occasion. In chapter eight, Richard Durst and Dirk Kabel report on the results of a study about cross-functional teams in a Concurrent Engineering environment within a multi-dimensional model of self-directed teams. Concurrent engineering organizes major projects, so subprojects can be developed simultaneously to reduce development time. Coordination in such a case requires effectiveness within each team and across teams, hence individual, team, and organizational issues impact project effectiveness. Durst and Kabel argue that the proper framework for such complex teaming is the learning organization. The principles of the learning organization, of effective teaming, and of project management must be brought together to organize effective concurrent engineering projects. Virtual teams may be perceived as cognitive and social phenomena. However, the people doing the intense intellectual work have the same situation as co-located workers - they have health concerns that impact endurance, concentration, and motivation. Kathi Lovelace, Christopher Neck, and Charles Manz address this issue in their paper. They point out that the long hours of sedentary activity create conditions that increase the probability of health problems such as cardiovascular dysfunction, ulcer, mood, etc. General physical fitness can also impact performance in virtual work situations as much as in nonvirtual settings. Using a systems theory framework to examine virtual team performance, the authors make a case that the organization should take steps to enhance worker health, not just because it is morally and ethically appropriate, but because it directly impacts performance. Finally, the comparison of traditional, co-located teams and virtual teams has been examined from several perspectives in this book. The co-located teams tend to be used as the benchmark for the virtual teams. Lisa Horvath and Timothy Tobin examine the comparison with a focus on the competencies needed for effective virtual teams. Competencies are clusters of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that result in effective individual or team performance. The distinction between team-specific and team generic competencies is a crucial issue. Many project team members belong to multiple teams and they frequently move from one project to the next. They need to have skills that contribute to a specific project and to the next team they participate on. Those competencies have to fit with effective group processes, such as communication, decision-making, conflict management, and swift trust. Absence of competencies like these will result in less than desirable outcomes for the team.

Introduction

xvii

Building these assets will require an investment in team members by the organization. Michael M. Beyerlein Douglas A. Johnson Susan T. Beyerlein Editors

INTERNATIONALVIRTUALTEAMS: OPPORTUNITIESANDISSUES Duane Windsor ABSTRACT Widely accepted forecasts expect globally networked virtual teams cutting across firms and disciplines to become the dominant enterprise form of the 21st century. This chapter critically reviews concepts, experience, and evidence bearing on this new approach to business in the digital and global economy. Key aspects of the available literature (academic, consulting, and practice) are identified. It is important not to con.ate an evolutionary theory of the jr-m with an interpretation of the causes, logic, and effects of a particular stage of that evolution. While recent forecasts are reasonable projections of the opportunities opened by advanced communication technologies and likely falling prices for communication, the projections tend to be general in form. Detailed knowledge concerning forming, maintenance, and use of global virtual teams is slender How to adrlress global networking and virtual teamwork should be considered in light of various cautions being published about various kinds of change management approaches. Technology and human skill and motivation development investment are essential. Some prominent scholars have issued cautions concerning various popular change management approaches. “Despite all the rhetoric surrounding transformation and major change programs, the reality is that today’s managers have not yet encountered change programs that work” (Argyris, 1998, p. 104). In Virtual lkams, Volume 8, pages l-39. Copyright 8 2001 by Elsevier Scien? All rlgllts of repmdwtion in any form ISBN: O-7623-0843-5

Ltd. reserved.

2

DUANE

WINDSOR

part, admonitions reflect a gap between the discipline (or theory) and the practice (or field experimentation) of management (Drucker, 1999, p. 4). In part, admonitions reflect how little scholars or managers know reliably about running successful businesses in rapidly changing conditions. The state of knowledge might be characterized as, at best, a coin flip (50-50 odds), and if the coin is weighted then it is perhaps 60-40 odds or worse against success. Garvin (1993) addresses the generally poor experience with continuous improvement efforts. He notes: “Continuous improvement programs are sprouting up all over as organizations strive to better themselves and gain an edge. Unfortunately, failed programs far outnumber successes, and improvement rates remain distressingly low” (1993, p. 78). Garvin attributes a high failure rate to a lack of understanding of “a basic truth”: “Continuous improvement requires a commitment to learning.” Otherwise, “Change remains cosmetic, and improvements are either fortuitous or short-lived.” There are of course success stories of true learning organizations and knowledge-creating companies that have achieved a link between learning and continuous improvement. (Garvin cites Analog Devices, Chaparral Steel, and Xerox.) Zangwill (1995) addresses the generally poor experience with mergers and acquisitions. He notes that, “Despite so many companies making acquisitions now, most make them incorrectly and suffer a loss. . . . Contrary to the popular belief that acquisitions are usually successful, the acquiring firm typically loses money on the deal” due to overemphasis on deal making and grossly inadequate attention to implementation (1995, p. A14). “Doing the deal is the easy part. Making the merger work is tougher” (Markels, 1997, p. Cl). Zangwill(l995, p. A14) argues close attention to business basics: “Be wary of the popular views about acquisitions, such as create synergies, obtain growth, or stick to one’s knitting. These notions fail to-probe the details that really determine success, such as special knowledge and capabilities, people, processes, finances, closeness to customers” (Zangwill cites Emerson Electric, Motorola, and Southwest Airlines as successful acquirers). Duncan (1989) observe4 that “corporate culture” - a notion adopted from anthropology - is an elusive notion. Porter (1996, p. 61) characterizes current views on operational effectiveness - a term embracing many of the dimensions of change management - as “dangerous half-truths” that “are leading more and more companies down the path of mutually destructive competition.” It has been reported that in just the previous four years, nearly 30,000 articles about empowerment had appeared in print media (Sant et al., 1999, p. 111). Argyris (1998) concludes that empowerment is largely an illusion, because CEOs undermine it, employees are either unprepared or unwilling to assume new responsibilities (and quite possibly for good reasons), and change

Internutional

virtual

Teams: Opportunities

and Issues

3

management professions themselves inhibit empowerment (cf. Malone, 1997). Argyris argues that the chief difficulty is generating internal (i.e. personal) commitment, as distinct from the appearance of external compliance within a command and control hierarchy. Rather similar admonitions have been published concerning teamwork. Even though an early advocate of teaming, Drucker is critical of the modem team literature. “Everyone these days preaches the team as the ‘right’ organization for every task. . . . And what matters most is not whether the team is indeed ‘the answer’ (so far there is not too much evidence for it), but . . . that the basic assumption of the one right organization is no longer tenable” (Drucker, 1999, p. 4). Drucker (1995, p. 97) warns that: “ ‘Team-building’ has become a buzzword in American business. The results are not overly impressive.” Earley and Mosakowski (2000) studied transnational team functioning. They comment: “Globalization has been a catchall phrase for team heterogeneity within a micro-organizational context. Global organizations and markets demand more transnational coordination. Researchers must set aside the ideological lure of diversity to seek a systematic explanation of team process” (2000, p. 47). Glenn L. Dalton (of Sibson & Co., management consultants) reports that some one-and-a-half to three years into teamwork effort employees commonly begin questioning the approach (Schellhardt, 1997). An enthusiastic acceptance of the initial honeymoon euphoria often results in observable increases in operating results. Then the employees begin to think about what their rewards should be. Teps (in various forms) are now a widespread form in U.S. businesses. There is ample evidence favorable to team approaches to business - as long as one understands that one is flipping a possibly negatively weighted coin in attempting to imitate successful examples. (Excellent collections of case studies are available in Manz & Sims, 1993, and Wellins et al., 1994.) Al Hendershot (1996), vice president at AlliedSignal Aerospace, reported on a new account team structure of about 150 global teams targeted at key customers or groups, in combination with varying divisional priorities and flexible measures of success for pay negotiated with teams and based on a mixture of division specification (25%), revenue benchmarks (25%), and customer satisfaction measures (50%) developed with customers. Within one year, there was over an 11% increase in revenues and over a 50% increase in customer satisfaction ratings. (The effort was part of a turnaround at AlliedSignal under Lawrence Bossidy, in from General Electric.)

DUANE

WINDSOR

Oticon Holding A/S of Denmark makes hearing aids (Labatre, 1996). Lars Kolind, appointed CEO in 1988, abolished formal organization in 1990. ‘Yrojects, not functions or departments, became the defining unit of work. Today at Oticon, teams form, disband, and form again as the work requires” (Labarre, 1996, p. 80). A project leader is someone with “a compelling idea” that competes entrepreneurially for resources and people. The firm’s ten-person management team advises and supports but makes “no” decisions. “It is, essentially, a free market in work” (Labarre, 1996, p. 80), with some hundred projects at any time. “All vestiges of hierarchy have disappeared” (Labarre, 1996, p. 80), although one should recall that they barely existed for decades at Lincoln Electric (Cleveland, Ohio). Oticon more than doubled in size in a flat world industry market over five years (Labarre, 1996, p. 79). There are difficulties with case study evidence of the sort just summarized above (see Eisenhardt, 1989, 1991). Key difficulties are: (a) success stories tend to be promoted, while failures are harder to identify (but see Rothstein, 1995; and Wetlaufer, 1994); and (b) post action reports by participants must always be handled with caution, because belief and evaluation are readily conflated. Unfortunately, “Historians relate, not so much what is done, what they would have believed” (B. Franklin, Poor Richard’s Almunuck, 1738, quoted in Nelson, 1999, p. 334). These patterns in the management literature are natural, not nefarious. Typical 21st century business organizations will increasingly, and both necessarily and efficiently so, comprise cross-firm networks operating through virtual teams (see Lipnack & Stamps, 1987, 1993a, b, c, 1993/1994, 1994, 1997, 1999a, b). As the 19th century industrial revolution produced the large, command-and-control corporation, the emerging digital and global economy is widely expected to produce a new organizational form of globally networked virtual teams. In general, the prediction has merit; in detail, the research and practice spheres are wide open. While much of the prominent work on this theme has been published by Lipnack and Stamps, whotchristened these cross-firm~virtual teams “TeamNets” (1993c), for “networks of teams” (Lipnack & Stamps, 1993/1994), they are hardly the only prognosticators of this trend (e.g. Amst, 1995; Davidow 8z Malone, 1992; Grenier & Metes, 1995; Henry & Hartzler, 1997; McGovern, 1990; Sproull dz Kiesler, 1991; Tapscott, 1995; Townsend et al., 1998). ‘The dominant business organization of the future may not be a permanent corporation but rather an elastic network” (Malone & Laubacher, 1998, p. 148). Two of the five articles in the Harvard Business Review’s 75th anniversary piece (1997) on “Looking Ahead: Implications of the Present” dealt with a networked world. As Lipnack and Stamps point out, “Most managerial gurus

International Wrtual Teams: Opportunities and Issues

5

today herald the coming end of boundaries - between divisions within a company, between companies and their suppliers or customers, and between companies and their competitors” (1994, p. 33), echoed in Welch’s “dream” of a “boundaryless company” (“Jack Welch,” 1993) at General Electric, cited by the authors and Garvin (1993). Drivers of 21st Century Business Evolution

Several important drivers support this forecast concerning organizational evolution in the 21st century. These drivers include globalization of business, the information revolution, improved technology, and increased marketplace competition. ‘You have no choice but to operate in a world shaped by globalization and the information revolution” (Townsend et al., 1998) involving: (a) flattened structures; (b) inter-firm cooperation opportunities; (c) worker expectations concerning empowerment, flexibility, and telecommuting (see Gerber, 1995); (d) shift to service and knowledge work; and (e) globalization. The key driver for virtual teaming is simply technology: the ability to communicate across distance and time (with prices falling), and the opportunities that such electronic communication as well as “e-commerce” open up. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Federal Express Corp. began electronic networking approaches to business in the 1980s (Amst, 1995). BP America Inc. was expected to process electronically at least 40% of 440,000 invoices annually (Amst, 1995). The essential elements for virtual teaming are desktop videoconferencing, collaborative software, and electronic communication (Townsend et al., 1998), in combination with falling prices for such infrastructure. A virtual team needs a shared data-information base and direct communication links (which can be anonymous).’ Virtual teams also need teamwork and communication skills (Townsend et al., 1998). Another driver is increased marketplace competition and global integration opportunities. In the face of such competition, small firms particularly need to collaborate in order to survive, especially in industries characterized in recent years by a great deal of consolidation. Cited examples in the literature include International Data Group Inc. (of Framingham, MA) (McGovern, 1990) the Minnesota T&State Manufacturers Association (Lipnack & Stamps, 1993b), and the development beginning in 1983 by which some 3,500 Danish businesses joined into multi-firm networks (Lipnack & Stamps, 1994). Miles and Snow (1994) examine additional firms. Large globally-oriented corporations are also looking for organizational solutions to their operating requirements, and competition, technology, and globalization in combination

DUANE

WINDSOR

point toward international virtual teams and networked partnerships. BP reports a flat, decentralized, learning organization of virtual team networks fit for the global economy (Browne & Prokesch, 1997; “Sharing knowledge,” 1997). “In time, virtual teams will become the accepted way to work” and in combination with globally networked firms “will profoundly reshape our world” (Lipnack & Stamps, 1999a). This forecast (and it is presently more a forecast of potential future developments based on current trends and possibilities than a confirmation of already established reality) links two kinds of developments. At the most macroscopic (i.e. interorganizational) level, businesses will increasingly cooperate in partnerships - whether informal, temporary networks or formal, permanent joint ventures or alliances comprised of multiple organizations. Such interfirm arrangements will accomplish degrees of vertical and/or horizontal integration of activities, whether pursued on the customer or the supply-chain side of the marketplace or across that conventional exchange (i.e. trading) boundary. At the most microscopic (i.e. intraorganizational) level, businesses (including these networks or alliances) will increasingly operate through virtual (i.e. non-proximate and largely electronically linked) cross-disciplinary teams. As a result, a network or alliance will itself be effectively an electronically networked operation: “teamnets, or networks of teams that cross conventional boundaries” (Lipnack & Stamps, 1994). Indeed, interfirm networking must be limited if operated largely through proximate (i.e. non-virtual) teams, and electronic communication technology presumably facilitates firm as well as individual networking. The emphasis on virtual teamwork must presumably increase as networks operate nationally, internationally (across two or more boundaries), and in the extreme instance globally. Lipnack and Stamps (1999a) provide a good working definition for virtual teams: teams crossing time zones, distance, and organizational boundaries through use of technology. They identify “purpose, people and links” as the three key facets in the definition. Their term “link” connotes interpersonal connections, whether through face-to-face conversation or communication technologies (Lipnack & Stamps, 1999a). Virtuality permits what amounts to flexible, perhaps matrix-like, interactions cutting across distance, time, and internal and external organizational boundaries. (Here, “matrix” is a “frame of mind” rather than a structure, per Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1990.) Internal firm boundaries are typically portrayed as “silos” or “chimneys” (Denison et al., 1996). Globally networked virtual teams hold much promise given emerging opportunities in a growing and integrating world economy. But team problems are likely to be exacerbated in virtual and global teams. Team building and maintenance involve already known issues that may well be exacerbated under

International virtual Teams: Opportunities and Issues

7

the stresses likely to be generated in the expected forms and processes of the 21st century. The critical assumption is that interactions over time will produce personal relationships (Lipnack & Stamps, 1999a). That is, technology must duplicate traditional teamwork interactions, and time is needed to build relationships. (The relationships that emerge are, of course, likely to be effective; the individuals are learning new skills that may affect relationships positively.) Organization of the Chapter

This chapter examines what is known - conceptually and empirically - about cross-boundary virtual teams. The business world is just at the very frontier of global virtuality: “We are only beginning to understand virtual teams and their impact” (Lipnack & Stamps, 1999a, p. 15). The remainder of the chapter proceeds in the following manner. The second section briefly explicates four preliminary observations concerning the chapter’s underlying methodology to assist the reader with grasping the nature and purpose of the author’s approach. The observations concern the nature of critical analysis, logico-empirical exposition, business expediency and pragmatism, and the managerial problem of manipulating multiple and often uncontrollable variables. The third section lays out essential conceptual terminology and likely logical and empirical relationships among chief concepts or constructs. (Barnard, 1938, and Weber, 1947, are taken to be models of this kind of approach.) The fourth section examines what is known about virtual teams. The fifth section examines what is known about interfirm networks and alliances. The final section summarizes briefly the author’s conclusions. .

FOUR PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS Before proceeding to the substance of virtual teamwork, four preliminary observations must be considered. These observations concern the nature of critical analysis, the logico-empirical approach of the chapter, the nature of organization design and evolution in firms, and the nature of managerial manipulation of important variables or contingencies. The Nature of Critical Analysis

A first observation concerns the nature of critical analysis. Both criticism and critique are necessarily critical (i.e. fault finding) in character, but they are quite different in purpose, approach, and degree of fault finding. Criticism carries the

DUANE WINDSOR connotation of a judgmental censure, implying something of poor quality of performance (as in criticism of particular literary or artistic works relative to standards), for guiding consumers’ choices or future attempts. In contrast, critique carries the connotation of a systematically critical analysis or review of a field of study, embracing multiple works, for improving understanding of the subject matter and methodology - with a particular eye here to best management practices.* A critique typically seeks to establish a chain of reasoning and evidence by first considering what is right and wrong, present and missing, in the current understanding of something.3 A critique seeks to systematize and improve upon the existing foundations of knowledge. Critique is very useful review methodology in the early stages of knowledge development. Criticism then deals more with specific work. Hence, while substantial reference is made here to the works of Lipnack and Stamps as leading edge material concerning globally networked virtual teams, the chapter is not a criticism of their work but a critique of the entire field, for which their work is an insightful resource. L.ogico-Empirical Approach of the Chapter A second observation concerns the general approach of the chapter, which is logico-empirical. International virtual teaming is, even if operating today in various forms, more a predicted phenomena of the 21st century than a pervasive reality. Resort is therefore to what literature - conceptual and empirical - is generally available on the topic. The chapter is not strictly a literature review but rather a conceptual analysis and a summary of the sense of the available empirical information (cf. Thompson, 1967). It is therefore useful to proceed logically (or conceptually) on the one hand to examine the origins, nature, functioning, and likely evolution of such teams; and on the other hand to determine what, if anything, is known now about such teams from I experience. A purely logical theory must apprehend every relevant contingency or possible variation in circumstances, while actual experience may not extend so far as yet. In this context, one is forecasting and prescribing, not validating. The standard approach for empirical hypothesis testing in economics is to formulate, from observation, a knowingly unrealistic logical model for testing against behavior, with the logical model then adjusted to account for unexpected behavior. Such an unrealistic model seeks to capture what is in effect central tendency in behavior. What is understood about international virtual teams is not sufficiently advanced for such empirical hypothesis testing,

International Virtual Teams: Opportunities and Issues

9

and treatment is very likely to be idealized (but see the excellent effort in &ley & Mosakowski, 2000). An approach in organization science is to be much more descriptivelyempirically realistic and rich, but complexity exacerbates interpretation problems. Hence, the logico-empirical methodology used here is to explore conceptually the possible logical combinations in order to help isolate those elements which appear to be most important - always for very practical matters of business management. Predicted new phenomena must fit with classic organization theory (e.g. Barnard, 1938; Thompson, 1967) or that theory must be revised (or overthrown). Nature of Organization Design and Evolution in Firms

A third observation concerns the nature of organization design and evolution in firms. Business is not a choice concerning philosophy of life, but rather a matter of expediency and pragmatism. “Teamwork is a business expedient, not a philosophy, and rules may be bent when necessary” (Genevieve Segol, principal scientist, R&D Department of Bechtel Corp., in Wetlaufer, 1994). The purpose is to enhance individual satisfaction and firm performance, on the assumption that the former instrumentally advances the latter, The matter at hand is thus descriptive-empirical (what is or can be) and instrumental (how acceptable means serve desirable ends) rather than normative (even though means as well as ends must be evaluated morally). Instrumental analysis must connect means and ends through a cause-and-effect theory of action and behavior. Although it may be important to understand teamnets as highly democratic (see Lee, 1994; Putnam, 1993), democracy is not the purpose, but rathefthe instrumentality, of networking and empowerment in business. Managerial Manipulation

of Important Variables

A fourth observation concerns the nature of managerial manipulation of important variables or contingencies. As discussion moves in the chapter from a virtual and local team within a single organization to a virtual and international team within a global network of organizations, the number of variables at play likely increases dramatically. A system is a set of elements and their significant interrelationships (Barnard, 1938, pp. 77-78). The more complex a system, the more variables - and also the more links, more change in links, and more types of links - will be involved. Attempting to study a complex system logically or empirically is not a simple task. Barnard (1938, pp. 202-205) adopts the notion or method of a “strategic factor” from the

10

DUANE WINDSOR

economic and engineering notion of a “limiting factor” (emphasized by the institutional economist John Commons, cited by Barnard). For instrumental purposes of accomplishing a purpose, the elements or parts of a “system or set of circumstances” (Barnard, 1938, p. 202) separate into those whose absence or manipulation will accomplish the desired purpose, and those that remain constant (i.e. “complementary factors”). ‘The limiting (strategic) factor is the one whose control, in the right form, at the right place and time, will establish a new system or set of conditions which meets the purpose” (Barnard, 1938, p. 203). Strategic factor (broader than limiting factor) conveys, for Barnard, a sense of dynamism in changing circumstances (limiting factor being relatively static). “To do or not to do this, that is the question” (Barnard, 1938, p. 205). Strategic factors are people, money, technology, leadership, and extent of the market (cf. Mahoney, 1996). It may be necessary analytically to think of holding constant variables which in reality are not that constant at all (Barnard, 1938). A suggested instance of successful empowerment is the situation at AES, a global electricity firm founded in 1981 (Sam, Bakke & Wetlaufer, 1999). Some 40,000 employees are organized into small teams responsible for operations and maintenance; functional departments (including human resources) have been eliminated. (Manz & Sims, 1993, include a case study of an AES team.) An emphasis is placed on distributed leadership and shared values. However, a role exists for Roger Sant (AES Chairman) and Dermis Bakke (AES CEO): that role involves advising and encouraging, guardianship of the first principles (i.e. values), and accountability enforcement. Bakke describes a holistic enterprise of simultaneously interacting variables: “It has to do with our structure and our practices hiring, compensation, information flow, and so on. They’re like an ecosystem. Everything about how we organize gives people the power and the responsibility to make important decisions, to engage with their work as businesspeople, not as cogs in a machine” (1999, p. 112). The approach creates an emphasis on generalists (1999, p. 114). People own decisions because they make them: “The process bf learning and doing is what creates engagement fun” (Sam et al., 1999, p. 114). Compensation is presently divided roughly 50% between financial performance and safety and environmental impacts and 50% adherence to “our four shared values - fairness, integrity, social responsibility, and fun” (1999, p. 116).

A FIRST ANALYSIS OF KEY ELEMENTS A useful first step is to organize the relevant concepts and language (cf. Barnard, 1938; Thompson, 1967), so that empirical experience and evidence

11

International Wrtual Teams: Opportunities and Issues

Intrafirm Communities

7

and

Interfirm Networks

Distance

/

Global Network Virtual Team

, /

Time Fig. 1. The globally networked virtual team (embedded cube view).

make systematic sense. A simple visual model of the globally networked virtual team is depicted in Figs 1 and 2 in two different forms. Figure 1 comprises a three-dimensional matrix (whose interior cells are not shown in detail) involving distance, time (both time clock and time zones), and ultimately interfirm networks as well as intrafirm communities. A “community” within a firm is composed of people, while an interfirm network is composed of people representing businesses (cf. Brown & Duguid, 1991). Figuh 2 attempts to identify the resulting issues (for which a full list does not yet exist). In addition to the known issues arising with traditional (i.e. proximate) teams, the globally networked virtual team introduces issues of virtuality, internationality, and partnering (and simultaneously so). This section of the chapter explicates distinctions and terminology relevant to understanding global virtual teams. The subsections address work groups and teams, variation in organizational arrangements, the complexity of globally networked virtual teams, and the basic elements of a learning organization. Work Groups and Teams It is necessary and desirable to distinguish among: (a) work groups, proximate teams, and virtual teams (associated with different infrastructure requirements); (b) formal organizations, organizational networks, and organizational alliances

12

DUANE WINDSOR

(associated in turn with partially or potentially competing business interests); and (c) local, national, international, and global distance and time (associated in turn with greater differences in cultures and operating conditions). The first and second sets of distinctions are dual, being in both instances firstly referred to a conventional (or base-line) notion (work group or formal organization), and then secondly to subtypes of the postulated alternative (proximate versus virtual teams, or organizational alliances versus networks). Distance and time form a joint continuum (joint in the sense that time zones correspond to distance), while time involves both time clock (24-hour flexible work “day”) and time zones (global work “day”). To the new phrase “24-7” must be added time zone as roughly synonymous with distance. A work team is a set of two or more individuals (in practice typically more than three) whose job performance is interdependent, as distinct from a work

l

Distance Proxir nity

l

)

Impersonality (NonTICACaAL:em\ -'-- -lock r&aa.~a.crbLI”I.,

I

l

Inter-Firm

Team Issues

I .

Internationality Time Zones Cultures Markets l l l

Fig. 2. The globally networked virtual team (divided circle view).

[nternatiod

virtual Teams: Opportunities and hues

13

group, which although also a set of two or more individuals does not involve interdependent job performance, although work and space may be shared. (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, p. 113, make a detailed comparison.) A team collaborates or cooperates on joint work, and typically cross-disciplinary interaction is warranted. “‘A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, set of performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable” (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, p. 112). A proximate team (i.e. a traditional on-site, face-to-face team) is (in principle) one whose members collaborate only through a physical gathering in one location. (Individuals and subgroups may handle independently assigned work, which is then brought to the collaborative team.) A virtual team (that is, a dispersed, networked, or offsite) team is (in principle) one whose members never meet, or seldom, together physically in one location. (In practice, some physical interaction for relationship building and some liaisoning is often prescribed.) All collaboration takes place by long-distance communication channels (whether office-to-office, across town, or across the globe). In reality, team operations may mix group and team activities, as well as proximate and virtual activities (and the mixing may be positive for team performance). In addition to communication technology infrastructure, virtual teams involve issues of accessibility, spontaneity, and psychological propinquity. The reason for making these distinctions is illustrated in Fig. 3, which is a two-by-two matrix. The horizontal stub separates proximate (collocated) and virtual (distributed) teams. The vertical stub separates multidisciplinary (and presumably heterodox as well as heterogeneous) communities of people from homogeneous (and presumably orthodox) communities of people (whether within or across organizations, for the moment). Variety of teams must be noted. Teams may be temporary or permanent; unless work is interdependent, then a homogeneous work group (sharing work) may suffice. Teams involve interdependency of multiple disciplines for some common purpose. Virtuality begins with flexible working and sharing work across firms. Virtual (distributed) teams need minimization of communications lag and maximization of human interaction - suggesting a substantial infrastructure in place (even though prices for communication and technology investment are themselves falling). Types of Organizational Arrangements A formal organization is for present purposes a legally defined business entity. It is simplest to think of the whole enterprise rather than of its subsidiaries,

14

DUANEWINLXOR

affiliates, or other sub-units. (One can think more broadly of Barnard’s, 1938, conception of an organizational “field” or “system” without real harm to the analysis here.) An organization may be centered about a reasonably unified culture, or it may involve reasonably differentiated subcultures. A culture is the system of beliefs - including attitudes and values - and of behavioral patterns and methods characteristic of an organization (see Duncan, 1989) The distinction here between a network and an alliance is between naturally emerging cooperation and intentionally effected cooperation. A network is then more a spontaneous system (cf. Barnard, 1938, p. 104) of cooperating firms. Networking can occur without formal organizational approval of the relationship itself, as in communities of practice. (Leadership may of course authorize and aggressively pursue a policy of networking.) The notion of a network nevertheless suggests reasonable stability of such lower-level cooperation. An Virtual (Distributed) Team

Proximate (Collocated) Team

1) MultiDisciplinary (Heterogeneous) and Heterodox Community

Temporary project management task force

2)

Permanent team

work

, Homogeneous and Orthodox Community

Shared work within a firm

C-unities of people and of &inns l

l

Minimize communications lag Maximize human interaction

1). Flexible working 2)

times

Shared work across firms

Fig. 3. Two-by-two matrix for comparison of team types.

International Wrtual Teams: Opportunities and Issues

15

alliance is, by contrast, a more intentional system of cooperating firms, implying leadership approval and commitment. (The same notion might well be applied at the team level, both within and across organizations.) Again, the notion suggests reasonable stability of formally contrived relationships between or among firms, although alliances may be shifting in a turbulent business environment. Networks and alliances likely involve significant intercultural communication issues. Distance and time vary more or less jointly from local vicinity (roughly physical node and subnational state or province) to national economy and then international (i.e. cross-national) operations to truly global distances and time zone differences. Distance and time zone will tend to correlate with national boundaries and variations in national cultures and languages. Time should be understood as involving both a 24-hour clock (flexible working) and 24 shifts in time zones (global working). Distance affects the latter and not the former. A virtual team operating across Canada, the United States, and Mexico (that is, within NAFTA) is physically separated, but more or less operating across a limited number of time zones; it can be operating across cultures, languages, and market conditions. A virtual team operating across North America, Europe, and the Far East adds time zones (as well as distances) and can add multiple cultures and languages.4 Complexity of Globally Networked Virtual Teams Figure 4 captures the complex set of variables arguably involved - at a minimum - in globally networked virtual teams. The depiction is developed logically. To analyze opportunities and issues, one works outward from the innermost box. At the heart of the matter is the underlying view that the learning and knowledge managing enterprise - a firm of knowledge workers and shared information users - is the organizational form of the future (see Garvin, 1993; Grant, 1996; Leonard & Swap, 1999). One example may be distributed R&D communities (on which Lewis, 1998, reports). Learning Organizations At the core of Fig. 4 (innermost box) is a learning and knowledge management enterprise. Garvin (1993) views learning as the necessary foundation for continuous improvement. He emphasizes that organizational learning must be built around the “three MS” of clear and well-grounded meaning, clear and operational guidelines for management practice, and concrete measurement tools to establish-rate and level of learning.

16

DUANEWINDSOR

Garvin (1993) argues that learning is not a well-developed concept. “Surprisingly, a clear definition of learning has proved to be elusive over the years” (Garvin, 1993, p. 79). Garvin offers the following definition: “A learning organization is an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transforming knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights” (1993, p. 80). His five building blocks are skills at systematic problem solving, experimentation, experiential and historical (i.e. internal) learning, benchmarking (i.e. external learning), and rapid knowledge transfer. “Learning organizations are not built overnight. Most successful Joint Venture or Network Team Drive for autonomy Conflicting business interests Differences in corporate cultures

l l l

l l

l

cc

l

GI

Culturallv Diverse Teams Interpretation Difficulties Great Variation in Nora~~ and Behaviors

I Communication Issues

International Teams Xnmunication Across Time zones teat Variation in Operating Conditions Virtual Teama Transaction Communication at Distance CO&S Communication Around Time Clock --_-_-_---. Baseline Cross-Disciplinary Problem6 Proximate Team and Costs _ of Teama Specialization of Labor Cross-Unit Cooperation Joint Production Task Shared (Joint) Leadership Individual Zepl l l l l l

Fig.4.

Identification of sourcesofvariationin virtual teamwork.

[~ternational Virtual Teams: Opportunities and Issues

17

examples are the products of carefully cultivated attitudes, commitments, and management processes that have accrued slowly and steadily over time” ((&vin, 1993, p. 90). Immediate action steps, however, include: (a) fostering a learning environment; (b) opening up boundaries; and (c) creating learning forums (i.e. programs or events such as strategic reviews, systems audits, benchmarking studies, study missions, symposia). Cross-Disciplinary

Team

As suggested in Fig. 4 (the next box outward from learning organization), the chief consideration in forming a cross-disciplinary team is to leverage human resources and address either different or more complex task environments (Dill, 1958) that cannot reasonably be handled by conventional work groups. Transaction costs can be relatively low with proximate teams, in the sense that once at the office time and distance are minimal considerations. Crossdisciplinary proximate teams cannot act globally except at high transport and time lag costs, such that a high-performance virtual team at distance and around the clock will outperform proximate teamwork for at least certain tasks. While virtual teams may not strictly speaking be new (mail, rail, phone, and fax have arguably permitted some degree of virtual teamwork to exist), networking technology, which facilitates working across distance and time, greatly expedites virtual teamwork. But infrastructure costs for such facilitation literally transaction costs - rise, although prices are predicted to decline steadily (as historically have transoceanic telephone communication prices). The baseline problems and costs of teams are still there, and additional costs and issues are encountered. International teams must communicate across time zone% and variable operating conditions. Culturally diverse teams are then highly likely. An international or global virtual team may function within a single firm or within a multifirm arrangement.

VIRTUAL

TEAMS AT WORK

The author’s proposed essential test for a team is that it should outperform, or at least perform as well as a work group with equal or better satisfaction for the individual members. (Otherwise, there is little point in investing in teamwork. Teamwork typically comes with greater company expectations regarding performance.) Teams of cross-disciplinary specialists (typical in sports) are an old phenomenon” The same argument must hold for virtual as against proximate teams6 Warkentin et al. (1997) compared traditional and virtual teams, the latter using the MeetingWeb computer conferencing system. The

DUANE

WINDSOR

authors concluded virtual teams could not outperform traditional teams; performance and communication effectiveness were about equal, but the face-to-face team members reported greater satisfaction. Relational links among team members were found to be important. Having teams in different countries collaborating in the development of a website is a comparable situation (Lillie, 1996). Jarvenpaa et al. (1998) reported on 75 global virtual teams of 4 to 6 members (all students) residing in different countries and operating for eight weeks. ‘Iwo weeks of trust-building exercises had a significant effect on team members’ perceptions of colleagues’ ability, integrity, and benevolence, but not directly on trust per se (which operated indirectly through the mediating factors). Strategies employed in electronic mail messages (the only technology together with occasional chat sessions) were quite different for the three highest trust and the three lowest trust teams. ‘The strategies suggest the presence of ‘swift’ trust” (1998, p. 29), which assumes assignment of people based on ability (in effect, roughly the same as the notion of “expert power”). Earley and Mosakowski (2000) tested the functioning of hybrid team cultures through a qualitative field study (observation and interviews, using five teams) and two confirmatory laboratory studies. They argue an hypothesized curvilinear relationship in which both homogeneous and highly heterogeneous teams outperform moderately heterogeneous teams (defined in terms of nationality, with virtually all team meetings conducted in English) in the long run. Homogeneous teams outperform heterogeneous teams in the short run. “We argue that transnational teams do not begin with shared meaning systems and that successful heterogeneous teams create hybrid team cultures over time” (2000, p. 26). “The studies reported in this article suggest that the processes underlying teams are more complex than they -were previously thought to be. . . . The moderately heterogeneous groups showed many communication problems, relational conflict, and low levels of team identity. . . . dysfunctional for team effectiveness” (2000, p. 45). The classic conceptual w$rk of Thompson (1967, pp. 80-8 1) included a brief discussion of “task force or project management” defined as handling “unique or custom tasks” by deploying specialists based “in homogeneous groups for ‘housekeeping’ purposes” into “task forces for operational purposes.” (It must be remembered that Thompson’s abstract language, like that of Barnard, 1938, was shaped by the effort to give a general logical account of organizational functioning.) Examples cited by Thompson include the home-construction industry (where general contractors assemble task forces of specialized craftsmen), community disaster recovery (or “synthetic”) organizations, and the general hospital (where medical task forces are applied to individual cases).

I,,temtional

Wrtual Teams: Opportunities

and Issues

19

Thompson (1967, p. 81) makes the following observation:“that coordination through mutual adjustment is accomplished within the task force, that coordination through scheduling is accomplished within the groups from which speci&sts are dispatched, but that to a considerable extent the rule-making aspect of coordination resides in occupational or professional associations external to the organization.” Thompson (1967, p. 57) developed a proposition that “organizations group positions to minimize coordination costs” based on the argument “that coordination by mutual adjustment is more costly, involving greater decision and communication burdens, than coordination by plan, which in turn is more costly than coordination by standardization.” The cost of planning also rises with number of variables and length of lines of communication (Thompson, 1967, p. 58). “There is nothing startling about the fact that when technology calls for action by crews or teams, the necessary positions are grouped into crews or teams; this is commonplace at the grass roots, or lowest levels, of complex organizations” (Thompson, 1967, p. 58). Costs of “coordination by mutual adjustment” presumably rise with number of positions, leading organizations “to fashion the smallest possible groups” (Thompson, 1967, p. 58). Standardization is one solution, with standardization across multiple groupings involving liaison or staff positions for vertical linking (Thompson, 1967, pp. 60-61). Thompson (1967, p. 61) draws a distinction between committee coordination (for organizations “with sequential interdependence not contained by departmentalization”) and task force or project groupings (for organizations “with reciprocal interdependence not contained by departmentalization”). Thompson (1967, p. 59) argued that the hierarchy of organization design is: (a) reciprocal interdependence; (b) sequential interdependence; and (c) common processes (or pooled interdependence)! (Saavedra et al., 1993, model complex interdependence of task, goal, and feedback combinations in work group performance.) All organizations involve common processes, and the more complex the organization the more likely all types of interdependence will be involved as we11.7 Benejits or Costs and Time in Virtual Teaming

Figure 5 maps a conjecture concerning virtual teams onto the Katzenbach and Smith team performance curve (1992, p. 84). Those authors treat the vertical axis as performance impact and the horizontal axis as team effectiveness. In their view, when a work group is changed into a team, performance declines (as a result of the forming and storming stages well-known to students of teamwork).* At the nadir of the declining performance curve is a “pseudoteam.” If and when that group accomplishes norming, the performance curve

DUANE

WINDSOR

moves upward, so that a potential team is performing as well as the work group did previously. Then as team effectiveness increases over time, a “real team” develops and then a “high-performance team” (styled in Fig. 5 an “ideal team)“. Hence Katzenbach and Smith separate the performing stage into real teaming and high-performance teaming.’

Benefits or costs

Ideal Team

Operating Benefits

Nonning

I-

Domestic Marketplace and Low-Level Information Technology Fig.

Performing Traniaction --costs __-- __-/

Global Information Economy and Suitable Information Technology

Time

5. Mapping of the Katzenbach and Smith model onto global virtual teams.

mewbanal

virtual Teams: Opportunities and Issues

21

Figme 5 adopts different axes in comparison to Katzenbach and Smith: the vertical axis measures firm benefits or costs (being equivalent to performance impact); the horizontal axis measures passage of time (being equivalent to cbge in team effectiveness, so that performance results causally from effectiveness). As depicted here, time is strictly speaking not a benefit or cost; but obviously time gained can be valuable and time lost can be costly. The conjecture depicted in Fig. 5 is that transaction costs (i.e. the difficulties) of &g are greater than the operating benefits or advantages of teaming in the forming and storming stages. (In effect, investment - loss of performance, as well as additional expenditures of resources - is required.) This treatment suggests, then, an accounting of benefits and costs over time. With respect to virtual teams, these forming and storming stages possibly correspond to the difficulties likely to be encountered in the early history marked by low-level information technology and emphasis on operations in a domestic marketplace (i.e. flexible working). Virtuality may be useful for flexible working arrangements, but it is hardly likely to be a dramatic advantage. Norming is accomplished where a potential team is evolved, and roughly at that point operating benefits and transaction costs are equal. In a global information economy, with suitable information technology, while both operating benefits and transaction costs increase, the former rise faster than the latter. Virtuality arguably becomes steadily a competitive advantage (Tjosvold, 1991). It can be accepted that there are typically bound to be significant problems with team formation and maintenance for any number of reasons, exacerbated by virtuality. Considerations in Virtual Team Formation

Mathis and Jackson (1997, p. 177) identify five sources of team formation: common needs, common interests, common goals, physical proximity, and cultural similarity. Taking this approach at face value, global virtuality involves the initial three sources, while communication technology must substitute for physical proximity, and the issue of cultural diversity must be addressed.” Typical rationales for virtual teaming are: (a) avoidance of physical transport costs (money, time, human capital wear and tear); and (b) the flexibility and performance effects gained by being able to use best available personnel. Proximate teams are simply impossible where transportation costs become extraordinarily high. Virtual teams may occur from emergency necessity (as in handling a disaster) or by unplanned evolution over time, rather than through intention and planning.

DUANE WINDSOR

22

The Lipnack and Stamps “model for virtual teams” emphasizes three facets: “purpose, people, and links” (1999a). People involve “social capital” (Putnam, 1993) dependent on “trust, reciprocity, and dense social networks” (cited by Lipnack 8r Stamps, 1999a). Social capital concerns interpersonal relationships, while intellectual capital or human capital concern more conceptual and/or technical knowledge and skills. Teams combine social, intellectual, and human capital. Bob Buckman (CEO, Buckman Labs) reported that people were far more important than technology: “It’s 90% people and 10% technology” (Lipnack & Stamps, 1999b) - although the exact proportion could arguably depend on the technology then used (CompuServe forums, a decade ago). Communication in Teams The critical aspect of any team is communication, that is to say, interaction (considered in terms of both quality and frequency). The chief difference between a proximate team and a virtual team is that the former features daily face-to-face interaction, whereas interaction in the latter must be intentionally created in some manner. An Oticon A/S employee noted: “The most important communication is face-to-face communication” (Labarre, 1996, p. 81). Assuming that human relationships are functioning well within a proximate team, the issue is how to approximate those relationships within a virtual team that, does not communicate face-to-face in a physical location. Whatever problems exist in the proximate team will be exacerbated in virtuality. Hence, the practical tips for virtual teaming include: (a) a proximate get acquainted session, or deliberate efforts at long-distance acquaintanceship; (b) long-distance communication skills to minimize misunderstandings; (c) conflict management skills; and (d) familiarity with available technology to be-used. Compensation and Promotion in Teams The most unexplored territorjes of teamwork are compensation and promotion. Campbell (1997) is an examination of team compensation approaches. Lipnack and Stamps (1999b) discuss pay systems briefly. In the early 198Os, Eastman Chemical abandoned the Hay compensation system, which evidently was the largest factor in the employees’ reported low level of trust. The Hay system based pay and reward on a normal, bell-shaped curve such that half of the employees were automatically classified as “below median” (i.e. “underperformers”). Lipnack and Stamps (1999) warn of the hazards in team rewards: (a) such rewards may promote interteam (and intrateam, by m&design) competition; and (b) it is difficult to evaluate intrateam contribution. Promotion

Zntemational

virtual

Teams: Opportunities

and Issues

23

is also a problem, in that either an individual must be selected out of a team for higher positions (since a team does not get promoted) or such positions are closed to team members and filled on a different basis. (Adding steps of empowerment may be a surrogate for promotion.) Innovation

in Teams

“Although so much innovation today emerges through group processes, most literature on creativity focuses on creative individuals. We maintain that any group can be more creative, even if its members individually wouldn’t score highly on tests for creativity” (Leonard & Swap, 1999, p. ix). Leonard and Swap seek to integrate social psychology research with “the often chaotic, time-pressured environment in management” (1999, p. ix). The objective, however, is reasonably narrow: “a creative process that leads to a potentially novel, useful solution or process or product” (Leonard & Swap, 1999, p. 7). The authors emphasize that innovation results from diversity of people and “creative abrasion” relative to either group homogeneity or interpersonal conflict (Leonard & Swap, 1999, pp. 20-22). In other words, heterogeneity of viewpoint combined with the right kind of conflict can more reliably lead to innovation. The major problem then becomes removing barriers to interaction (Leonard & Swap, 1999, p. 24). Communication difficulties arise in different assumptions and styles, which must be recognized as such by participants (Leonard & Swap, 1999, p. 39). There are limits to heterogeneity: “Imagine a group in which everyone is so different that they literally have no common language for communication. Members can be so grounded in their disciplines, cultures, or thinking styles that they refuse to listen to anyone else. As a result, creati;e abrasion is never ignited, and instead the group resorts to time-saving techniques such as voting and splitting the difference” (Leonard & Swap, 1999, p. 49). Conveniently for purposes of virtuality, “English has become the international language of business” (Walters et al., 1994, p. 8).

ORGANIZING VIRTUAL NETWORKS OF VIRTUAL ORGANIZATIONS Lipnack and Stamps (1993a) identify five principles of TeamNets: (a) clarify a unifying purpose; (b) identify independent members; (c) create voluntary links; (d) recognize the power of multiple leaders (i.e. shared leadership); and (e) stay connected at all levels. In their view, the same principles apply among people, corporations, communities, and nations (as in the European Union).”

24

DUANE

WINDSOR

Several developments are apt to spur and shape global, cross-organizational virtual teams. Economic and enterprise globalization will necessitate and facilitate far-flung operations. Coca-Cola has been a prime example of global expansion in the 1990s. Transaction costs are being lowered by the information revolution, the e-commerce revolution, and various advances in computer and telecommunications technologies (desktop videoconferencing, collaborative software, intemet/intranet systems, the world wide web). Virtual reality technologies may enhance future interactions. Organizational flattening and employee empowerment efforts provide impetus in this general direction. The necessity and advantages of interorganizational cooperation are becoming better known. There is a shift to a knowledge management basis for sustainable competitive advantage. Workforce demographics and expectations work in the virtual teaming direction. The odds are that business enterprises are at the earliest stages of these various forces or considerations. Types of Inte@m Relationships Virtual teamwork will be affected by variations in interIirm relationships. There are many types and forms of inter&m relationships, characterized by Kanter (1989) as pooling (of resources), allying (to exploit opportunities), and linking (in partnerships). Walters, Peters and Dess (1994) examine the characteristics of successful strategic alliances and joint ventures. (Collins & Doorley, 1991, is an extensive study.) The chief driver is the striving for profitability and competitive advantage. “Just as acquisitions were extremely popular during the early and mid-1980s, international and domestic joint ventures have been formed extensively since the mid-1980s” (Walters et al., 1994, p. 5). The authors stress that the right partners must combine, regardless of reasons, and that rightness includes complementary uniqueness. In addition, partners must be compatible, trusting and trustworthy, and committed to common goals for a win-win situation to persist; Alliances are not automatically successful. “There is a significant probability that a newly formed strategic alliance will fail, even if the previously mentioned key principles are religiously followed” due to other factors, especially miscalculation or misforecasting (Walters et al., 1994, p. 8). Three key principles are: (a) clearly defining strategy; (b) phasing in the relationship; and (c) developing a blended (or joint) culture based on those of the partnering firms. “An alliance should have a clearly defined strategy that is closely tied to the corporate strategies of the partners” and some degree of concrete planning (goals and milestones) (Walters et al., 1994, p. 7). Since trust cannot be

tMematio&

Virtual Teams: Opportunities and Issues

25

“w&en into a contract,” it must develop as an aspect of the relationship. The authors offer that culture blending is the most difficult and most often ignored sped of partnering (1994, p. 8). Coutu (1998) reports that trust can develop in virtual teams, but that it develops in a very different way compared to the process within traditional teams. Strategy in Teamwork Strategy is arguably a neglected topic in teamwork. One possible reason is an assumption that sound strategy will simply emerge out of the proper process, or that teamwork structuring follows some strategic direction. Carney (1998) concluded that neither networks nor hierarchies were inherently superior, since different strategies would be involved. A network is more a community of firms. A possible difficulty with distributed R&D is that some activities have been geographically clustered (Pouder & St. John, 1996). Porter (1996) makes four key observations concerning strategy. First, strategic positioning is a matter of a decade or more. Second, mere operational effectiveness - while necessary - is not sufficient to constitute (or substitute for) strategy. By operational effectiveness, Porter has in mind benchmarking, continuous improvement, core competencies, TQM, time-based competition, empowerment, change management, and “the so-called learning organization” (1996, p. 63). “Operational effectiveness (OE) means performing similar activities better than rivals perform them” (1996, p. 62), while strategic positioning involves different activities (i.e. uniqueness). Third, what constitutes strategic differentiation is a combination of lowest relative cost position and highest nonprice buyer value delivered to the customer (i.e. superior quality at the same price). Fourth, the frontier of best practices - defined as a schedule linking relative cost position and nonprice buyer value delivered moves outward over time with innovation. Operational effectiveness means that a firm is on that frontier rather than within it. (Porter constructs a vertical axis for value and a horizontal axis for cost. An effective firm is on the resulting frontier, while a less effective firm lies toward the origin of the two axes.) implicit

Examples of New Structures The Dutch-British company Unilever (Maljers, 1992) had at one time envisioned “a flexible matrix of individual managers around the world” sharing “a common understanding of corporate strategy” - a notion understood as “Unileverization.” Such common understanding minimized needs for communication and coordination. In the face of the single European market and global

26

DUANE

WINDSOR

integration, Unilever subsequently moved from recruiting “compatible people” to diversity, making coordination critical (“Unilever”, 1996). The change in competitive and global conditions necessitated changes in strategy and process, resulting in a greater stress on some form of teamwork in distinction to simply parallel action. Asea Brown Boveri (ABB) is a Swedish-Swiss merger in the electrotechnical industry accomplished in 1987 with relatively little preparatory work (“ABB”, 1992). Rapid negotiations occurred among management and, in each company, a single major shareholder, without investment bankers and under complete secrecy. (Percy Barnevik, CEO of Asea, became CEO of ABB.) A dramatic transformation effort was thrown into gear. A key principle was decentralizing responsibility and authority into several thousand profit centers into which 180,000 employees were grouped controlled by an international matrix formed by a small top management team. The intention was to emphasize profit rather than growth. Return on capital employed was to be raised from 12.5% to 20%, and (real value) volume growth was targeted at 5% annually (3% from internal growth and 2% from acquisitions). With a highly diverse work force and operating areas, cohesiveness was generated by emphasis on profitability and by adopting English as the common language, the U.S. dollar as the common currency, and a new ABB logo. In 1994, Levi Strauss was inducted into America’s National Business pall of Name, and named in Fortune as most admired company in its industry. Subsequently, Levi Strauss (privatized in 1985) undertook a truly radical change program (Sheff, 1996). The purpose was to improve performance through values-driven competition (Howland, 1990), open communication (internally and with customers), teamwork, and employee participation, diversity, and accountability. (There was an increasingly desperate need for customer service targets and supply chain redesign in what was becoming a highly competitive and changing industry. Revenues fell from a high of $7.1 billion in 1996, up from $4.9 billion in 1991, to $6.9 billion in 1997 and $6 billion in 1998, as reported’@ The Scotsman, 1999.) A first step was to “fire” the entire white-collar staff, in the sense that current employees had to apply for redefined jobs. A “Third Floor” leadership team of 200 “change agents” was established at headquarters. Then Levi Strauss announced a dramatic slowdown of the reengineering effort (Wall Street Journal, November 26, 1996) due to internal turmoil. The company promised to stretch out reengineering over two years and not to discharge anyone due to the reengineering effort. Then Levi Strauss downsized the white collar force by 20% “citing jeans demand, tougher rivalry” (Wall Street Journal, February 21, 1997). Between 1997 and 1999, the firm laid off thousands of workers in North America including blue collar

International

Virtual Teams: Opportunities

and Issues

27

employees, and closed many plants. In 1992, the traditional piecework system was abandoned (the unions agreeing) for groups (“teams” of 10-35 workers sharing tasks), with the whole group being paid on the basis of output. The driver was the need for increased productivity and reduced costs, and it was thought that teams would reduce monotony and repetitive stress injuries. It appears that individuals of varying skill levels and/or motivations were grouped together, leading to internal group conflict. (In effect, each worker was rewarded for average group productivity, so that best workers lost income and worst workers gained income.) While evidence is difficult to evaluate, and likely disputed, there is reason to suspect that labor and overhead costs per output unit rose and then fell to “slightly below where they were before teams began” - one of Levi’s retired manufacturing controllers argued that a change in cost calculation conceals that “comparable costs are actually about 10% higher than in the pre-team era” (King, 1998, p. A6). Networked

Organizations

One of the key future developments affecting virtual teamworking will be the rise of networked organizations. Lipnack and Stamps (1999a) draw an important distinction between networked organizations and the combination of bureaucracy and hierarchy characteristic of recent business corporations (see O&off, 1999). The network will replace the pyramid as the archetypal organizational structure (Lipnack & Stamps, 1999a). A network is both a set of interactions among peers (i.e. nonhierachical cooperation), with implications for leaPership theory and practice, and a more dynamic and flexible (i.e. nonbureaucratic) approach to business. Lipnack and Stamps (1987) emphasize that a network is a linking of autonomous and decentralized business segments joined by shared ideas, values, vision, and interests. Organizational boundaries are blurred and changeable, even if not strictly discarded. Lipnack and Stamps (1994) do not, however, concur fully with Jack Welch’s boundaryless company notion: “But we hold that the contrary is true. The fact is, corporations need boundaries to distinguish themselves in the marketplace. Their ability to cross those boundaries and still maintain their own distinctive identity as the> develop their own core competence becomes their competitive advantage.” One may read into this statement an autonomy condition: independent businesses must maintain some distinctiveness or be absorbed into another organization. This argument is a logical corollary of the prevailing view in the strategic management literature that sustainable competitive advantage is a

DUANE

WINDSOR

function of differentiation in some form. Thompson (1967, p. 55) specifically took notice of the problem of “conditional autonomy” within organizations: “Autonomy of the group as such facilitates coordination by mutual adjustment, but we must recognize that autonomy is modified; the fully autonomous unit would not be or remain a part of the organization.” Hence, conditional autonomy functions within “the constraints established by plans and standardization.” The cross-firm network moves beyond conditional to full autonomy, but with value-chain partnering in some form for the purpose of collective action that could not be as efficiently or effectively accomplished, if at all, by one lirm acting independently. A “value-added partnership” (VAP) comprises multifirm cooperation lying between the extremes of marketplace competition and vertical integration (Boyle, 1993). The notion includes outsourcing through deverticalization in which the firm continues cooperating with its formerly subordinate elements including, for example, contract employees. A suggested model for the 21st century networked virtual organizations is the development of Linux (Malone & Laubacher, 1998). Linux was a striking software development project that occurred through a temporary, voluntary, and self-managing collaboration of interested individuals (“electronically connected freelancers, or e-lancers”). A computer-science student at the University of Helsinki (Finland), Linus Torvalde, distributed free on the Internet a rudimentary version of UNIX, christened Linux. There was an open invitation to download and modify Linux, with changes posted back to the Internet. The Linux development community grew, and within three years a good version of UNIX had evolved. ‘The Linux community, a temporary, selfmanaged gathering of diverse individuals engaged in a common task, is a model for a new kind of business organization that could form the basis for a new kind of corporation” (Malone & Laubacher, 1998, p. 146). As Malone and Laubacher point out, the Internet itself is a self-managed evolving electronic network (1998, p. 150). But Linux was initiated by a particular individual. (It has been reported that China will likely use Linux as the foundation for its software industry, since free’and also open code [Bolande, 20001.) “Business organizations are, in essence, mechanisms for coordination” (Malone & Laubacher, 1998, p. 146). Situations may require hierarchy, deliberation, teamwork, or other approaches (Drucker, 1999, p. 11). Drucker argues, moreover, that “the end of hierarchy” is “blatant nonsense,” because there must be a final authority in any institution (1999, p. 11). However rare an occurrence at the firm, there was a conscious CEO intervention in the “total chaos” permitted at Oticon A/S of Denmark: people and teams were relocated by project time horizon: short-term business goals on the top floor, medium-

International

Virtual Teams: Opportunities

and Issues

29

term projects on the second floor, technology, infrastructure, and support projects on the first floor (Labarre, 1996, p. 82). Thompson makes an important, albeit quite abstract, observation that hierarchy involves rank-ordering of contingencies generated for interdependent positions where grouping overtaxes communication mechanisms. “It is unfortunate that this term [hierarchy] has come to stand almost exclusively for degrees of highness or lowness, for this tends to hide the basic significance of hierarchy for complex organizations. Each level is not simply higher than the one below, but is a more inclusive clustering, or combination of interdependent groups, to handle those aspects of coordination which are beyond the scope of any of its components” (Thompson, 1967, p. 59). Moreover, it must be noted further that “dominance,” as distinct from “command and control,” does not necessarily disappear from a network of firms: “One of the primary roles for large companies may be to establish the rules, standards, and cultures for network organizations” (Malone & Laubacher, 1998, p. 151). In a case study of the rescue of the British portion (Leyland) of DAF BV (which collapsed in 1993) through development of an organizational network, Boyle (1994) concluded that two essential roles were those of the architect and the lead operator of the network, whether such roles are played by individuals or organizations within a network of organizations.12 Barnard provided a treatment of communication as the dominant factor in the structure of complex organizations (1938, pp. 106, 113, 175217-227) and the limiting factor in size of simple organizations (1938, pp. 106-109). By communication, Barnard meant the number of individuals one could direct in some manner. “In practice a limit of usually less than fifteen persons obtains, and for many types of cooperation five or six persons is the practicable limit” (Barnard, 1938, p. 106). Jack Welch’s view is quite different: “Remember the theory that a manager should have no more than 6 or 7 direct reports? I say the right number is closer to 10 or 15. This way you have no choice but to let people flex their muscles, let them grow and mature. With 10 or 15 reports, a leader can focus only on the big important issues, not on minutiae” (“Jack Welch”, 1993, p. 8). There were some employees who felt overworked (“Jack Welch”, 1993, p. 10). Barnard thought in terms of communication by the executive to widely separated persons. “Fundamentally, communication is necessary to translate purpose into terms of the concrete action required to effect it - what to do and when and where to do it” (Barnard, 1938, pp. 106107). Leadership is justified by the need to regulate communication. Communication is particularly a function of distance where all involved parties cannot see what is happening (Barnard, 1938, pp. 107-108). Barnard isolated two key aspects of complexity as technological burden of communication and

30

DUANE

WINDSOR

social or informal organization relationships (Barnard, 1938, p. 109). “Communication technique shapes the form and the internal economy of organization” (Barnard, 1938, p. 90).

CONCLUSIONS It is fairly standard procedure to justify a forecast by an appeal to historical evolution. Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations (1776), viewed the commercial or exchange economy as a stage in economic development following on earlier stages leaving a residue of mercantilism and medieval institutions hampering trade, investment, and specialization of labor. Lipnack and Stamps (1999a) note that “virtual teams and networked organizations” follow historically on groups, hierarchy (as a byproduct of urbanization), and bureaucracy (as a byproduct of industrialization). The networked organization reflects developments in information technology. For example, Buckman Labs (Memphis, TN) used to send personnel to customer sites for problem solving; the personnel all went online to communicate with customers electronically 24 hours a day (Lipnack & Stamps, 1999a, b). The approach is more flexible and cost-effective, but in addition virtuality means that the personnel need not be collocated any longer (Lipnack & Stamps, 1999a). It is important, however, not to conflate an evolutionary theory of the firm with an interpretation ,of the causes, logic, and effects of a particular stage. That organization structure has (if the description is accurate) moved through group, hierarchy, bureaucracy, and networking stages is not, per se, evidence of some progress. A theory of evolution, conceived of as progress, tends to result in planned change based on a presumed logic of the future. The contention of Edmund Burke and then Lord Acton, drawing on Burke,- was that not all change is automatically progress: “Facts, Burke had admonished, are a severe taskmaster” (Himmelfarb, 1952, p. 70). It is facts - of the global economy, technology, organizational opportunities, human behavior, and so on - that must shape appropriate forecasts of 21st century businessorganizations. It is to be emphasized, in this context, that Lipnack and Stamps do not simply discard earlier organizational forms: “The networked organization may also involve hierarchy, bureaucracy, and small groups, as well as distinctly networked relationships. The key is to select the best form of organization for a particular kind of work” (1999a). It is in the last sentence that a problem can arise: management may select virtual teams and networked organization, not by analysis of work requirements and strategic opportunities, but by fad (that is, by reference to what everyone else is doing reinforced by the presumption that progress is

International

Wrtual Teams: Opportunities

and Issues

31

occurring). Best practices benchmarking, in place of blind adoption or copying, means evaluating something as intrinsically valuable, as distinct from association with someone successful. In Drucker’s view, the “social universe” of management has no “natural laws” and “is thus subject to continuous change” due to lack of stability, and especially change affecting assumptions regarding organizational forms and managerial practices (Drucker, 1999, p. 4). “By now, however, it should have become clear that there is no such thing as the one right organization. There are only organizations, each of which has distinct strengths, distinct limitations and specific applications. It has become clear that organization is not an absolute. It is a tool for making people productive in working together. As such, a given organization structure fits certain tasks in certain conditions and at certain times” (Drucker, 1999, p. 11). This view makes organization design highly contingent (Thompson, 1967). Drucker stresses that contingency analysis deals with variation and not with a typical enterprise (1999, p. 1 l), within which various organization structures may coexist in any event (1999, p. 12). As Thompson points out, “No useful theory can rest on the assumption that everything is unique. It is probably inevitable that the early history of a scientific endeavor will be characterized by the opposite assumption, and by the search for universals. This certainly has been the case with organization theory, which until recently has been preoccupied with discovering the essential elements of all complex organizations” (1967, p. vii). As a field matures, then “patterned variations” can be studied (Thompson, 1967, p. vii). It is only with time and experience that science will be able to judge virtual teamwork and how 21st century managerial and organizational innovations fit into theoretical fundamentals. Drunker does not reject the notion of principles of organization, but rather he argues that principles essentially “only tell us what not to do. They do not tell us what will work. They tell us what is unlikely to work” (1999, p. 13). Principles function as restraints, rather than as formulas for success. It is not the case that globally networked virtual teams cannot function successfully or outperform alternatives. Rather, an important implication is that the same individuals will work in teams on some tasks, in command and control structure on other tasks, and in partnerships or alliances or joint ventures or networks on yet other tasks, and so on (Drucker, 1999, p. 14); such that what is most important is that individuals and organizations be versatile. Drucker goes on to point out that there are perhaps a half dozen types of teams “each requiring different management” and that there is an error in assuming that all teams for all tasks are “Jazz Combo” (Drucker, 1999, p. 14).‘” “Some people work best as team members. Some people work exceedingly well as coaches

DUANE WINDSOR

32

and mentors, and some people are simply incompetent to be mentors” (Drucker, 1999, p. 174), with performance likely varying under stressful versus predictable environments and according to position and organization size. Very powerful forces, including managerial psychology, are driving the emerging combination of virtual teams and virtually networked businesses. Falling prices for face-to-face communication and information sharing and global economic integration will doubtless facilitate the emergent business forms. Yet it is to be remembered, with caution, that we know relatively little about either virtual teamwork or enterprise networking, and probably less about human behavior in these new organizational forms. Infrastructure investment is important, and people are likely more valuable than technology in this regard. It may be that the Katzenbach-Smith performance curve of Fig. 5 should be extended - at least for purposes of discussion - to embrace analogously the shift from hierarchy and bureaucracy to empowerment, the shift from large vertically integrated firms to networks of small firms, and the shift from domestic to global operations. In this model, at first, performance declines and only later improves. If so, learning speed may perhaps be measured as how long recovery takes.14 It is not so much that the model is clearly applicable across the board, but that such a “law” should be suspected to operate until demonstrated not to exist. In a sense, the very nature of investment is to lose (i.e. commit) money first on the risk that one’s assessment of the apparent opportunity will turn out to be wrong. The forecast is generally likely to work out, but the details are far from known; and considerable variance and experimental innovation are, as always, likely to occur along the way. While the situation makes for chaos in management practice, it definitely enlivens the intellectual discipline of management theory.

NOTES 1. In 1996, NCR (spun off by AT&T) used “the Worm Hole” to stage its business turnaround. The “Worm Hole” was “a high-speed, full-bandwidth, continuously available, audio, video, and ‘data link” connecting three videoconferencing rooms through which virtual teams worked with each other successfully (Lipnack & Stamps, 1999b). 2. Well-known instances of critique in this more scholarly sense include Kant’s various critiques of pure reason (1781), practical reason (1788), and judgment (1790); and Marx’s critique of classical political economy (1859). Barnard (1938) includes a critique of the state of organizational theorizing at the time. Deconstruction - deliberate demolition of an archetypal work in order to destroy a field - is not the object, per se, of critique. 3. Naturally, however, if existing knowledge is wholly wrong, it will be swept aside as occurred with Darwin’s 1859 The Origin of Species.

International

virtual

Teams: Opportunities

and Issues

33

4. A concrete illustration of team and organizational networking in action is provided by the latter stages of the American War for Independence from Britain (Flexner, 1968). A world war proceeded partly as a France-American alliance and partly as a network of a Baltic armed neutrality league, Spain acting independently, and Britain declaring war on Holland. “The legend that Rochambeau and Washington enjoyed a friendship of perfection is based on the fact that both labored hard and successfully to present to the public an image of France-American unity” (Flexner, 1968, p. 430). The complex marshaling of allied military and naval forces at Yorktown was accomplished through long-distance persuasion (i.e. a virtual team was being formed) and relatively independent actions (military and naval) to effectuate a common enterprise for quite different goals. 5. Early research studies include Hertz and Rubenstein (1953), and Stogdill (1963). Maynard (1995, p. 82) quotes a Roman imperial bureaucrat, Caius Petronius (66 AD), who served under Nero: “We trained very hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.” Leaving aside the matter of proper translation (did Petronius really mean a “team” in modem parlance?), Petronius’s reported experience with reorganization approaches is telling enough. 6. Guidelines for virtual team development can be found in Eom and Lee (1999), Geber (1995), Maruca (1998), and Wardell (1998); see also D’Amours et al. (1999) Pawar and Sharifi (1997), Straus et al. (1998) and Suttling and Wood (1997). 7. Jackal1 (1988, pp. 49-56) addresses the problem of “moral mazes” in hierarchical corporate life. (Whether this problem will ameliorate in virtual networks is unaddressed.) One norm involves being perceived as a team player, a “multifaceted notion” having “its metaphorical basis in team sports, principally football” shaping both managerial image and argot (Jackall, 1988, p. 49). However, certain difficulties may arise parallel to the accomplishments of “cooperative teamwork”: (a) “Corporations discourage narrow specialization more strongly as one goes higher” due to emphasis on “versatility” (Jackall, 1988, p. 50). (b) “Another important meaning of team play is putting in long hours at the office” (Jackall, 1988, p. 51). (c) “Team playing means being seen as an effective group member, sticking to one’s assigned position. The good team player is not a prima donna” (Jackall, 1988, p. 51). Indeed, “Striking, distinctive characteristics of any sort, in fact, are dangerous in the corporate world. One of the most damaging things, for instance, that can be said about a manager is that he [or she] is brilliant” (Jackall, 1988, p. 52). (d) “Team play also means . . . ‘aligning oneself with the dominant ideology of the moment’ . . . official definitions of reality” (Jackall, 1988, p. 52). (e) ‘Team players display a happy, upbeat, can-do approach to their work and to the organization” (Jackall, 1988, p. 55). Hence, team play may involve the politically important “appearance of unanimity of opinion . . . especially during times of turmoil” and “consensus on a decision even though he [or she] might see things differently” (Jackall, 1988, p. 53). This consensus may be portrayed as suppression of personal advancement in order to work “for the correct solution to some problem” (Jackall, 1988, p. 53). “In a word, a team player is alert to the social cues that he [or she] receives from his [or her] bosses, his [or her] peers, and the intricate pattern of social networks, coteries, and cliques that crisscross the organization” (Jackall, 1988, p. 56). In contrast, however, “Top corporate executives are rarely described as ‘team players’ and middle

34

DUANE WINDSOR

managers are rarely described as ‘leaders.’ Such terms, however, depend less on personal attributes than on social position in the organization. All but the topmost person in a hierarchical organization is a subordinate to others and must, to some extent, cultivate the virtues of team play. Otherwise he will never reach a position where subordinates come to think of him as a leader” (Jackall, 1988, p. 56). Organizational promotion is a matter of perception of “style” (Jackall, 1988, pp. 56-59). 8. The four stages are sometimes known as convening, confronting, collaborating, and completing. 9. Katzenbach and Smith (1992, p. 8) identify team basics using a triangle whose three points are performance results, collective work products, and personal growth. The sidesof the triangle are formed by skills (joining performance results and collective work products), commitment (joining collective work products and personal growth), and accountability (joining personal growth and performance results). 10. There are two approaches to forming virtual teams. One approach is to develop a functioning proximate team, which then goes virtual. In this approach, the teambuilding stage has already been accomplished. (Naturally, there are additional teambuilding considerations involved in shifting from proximate to virtual interaction, and these considerations must vary with a number of considerations, including how willing and how prepared the human resources are to become virtual workers.) The other approach, in contrast, is to attempt to develop a functioning virtual team from individuals who have never worked together as a team. Project management teams are often of this character. In this approach, the virtual team must work through both the teambuilding processand engage with virtuality. It must be an open question at present as to whether immediate virtuality is a “strength” or a “weakness.” 11. “The continuance of an organization depends upon its ability to carry out its purpose” (Barnard, 1938, p. 91). 12. It is precisely in this context that the broad notion of international policy regimes - developed in international relations and international business literatures - may become highly applicable (Preston 8z Windsor, 1997). These regimes affect international transactions at country and firm levels of interaction. An evolving framework of agreements and understandings form the “rules of the game” of international business. Countries are linked by trade, investment, and enterprise interactions. A regime, which is effectively mutual acceptance of d&es and norms of behavior, need not develop formally (by agreement) but rather can develop tacitly or experientially. Countries must necessarily grapple with the balance between self-interest and mutual benefit from interaction: in other words, there are both costsand benefits to interaction. As at the organizational level; such interaction is voluntary (Barnard, 1938). 13. Drucker (1995, pp. 71-?02) explicitly distinguishes three types of teams in terms of type. of play and nature of position played by individuals. Individuals may play repetitively and in seriesin fixed positions (e.g. baseball team, assembly line, surgical team). Individuals may play repetitively but in parallel in fixed positions (e.g. football team, auto design team, symphony orchestra, cardiac arrest team). Individuals may play fluidly and in parallel (e.g. tennis doubles, jazz combo, GM Saturn plants). 14. For purposes of theoretical unification of these various strands of team and organizational networking, general recoursemay be made to Barnard’s (1938) theory of the organization as a “field” or natural “system” of cooperative activities of individuals coordinated in the first instance by satisfactory inducements. The idea of an inducement is that voluntary exchange is accomplished by two (or more) actors giving up something

T~temational

Virtual Teams: Opportunities

3.5

and Issues

of less value to themselves for something of greater value to themselves held by the other party (or parties). The nature of such a voluntary exchange is that both parties are by definition better off (having received something of greater value on both sides of the trade). It should be noted briefly that this conventional definition differs from Barnard’s broader notion of the formal Organization as a “field’ or natural “system” of cooperative activities involving what today would be called a firm’s internal and external stakeholders: “an organization is defined as a system of consciously coordinated personal activities orforces” (1938, p. 72, emphasis in the original). (Barnard restricted his attention to customers, employees, executives, owners, and suppliers.) The purpose is simply to retain tractability of analysis: one can reasonably expand the definition of organization to the field or system construct without grave harm. As Barnard noted: “most formal organizations are partial systems included within larger organization systems” (1938, pp. 78-79). Barnard also regarded “systems of cooperation which we call organizations . . . as social creatures, ‘alive,“’ in analogy to a person (1938, p. 79). Barnard already comprehended that an organization’s “environment” included other organizations. Organizations may be linked together informally as networks or formally as alliances.

REFERENCES ABB Deutschland (A). (1993). Harvard Business School, 9-393-130 (revised 1996). Argyris, C. (1998). Empowerment: The emperor’s new clothes. Harvard Business Review, 76, 98-105.

Amst, C. (1995). The networked corporation. Business Week, 3430, 8691. Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions ofthe executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bartlett,

C. A., & Ghoshal,

S. (1990).

Matrix

management:

Not

a structure,

a frame

of mind.

Harvard Business Review, 68, 138-145. Bolande,

H. A. (2000,

April

25). China

looks

to Linux

as a way not to get locked

into Windows.

Wall Street .Iournal, A23. Boyle,

E, (1994).

Creating

an organizational

network

out of the ashes of despair.

Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, 15, 11-14. Boyle,

E. (1993).

Value-adding

partnerships

as alternatives

to vertical

integration:

An exploratory

discussion by reference to some Northern Ireland examples. Ibar, 14, 29-38. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2, 4G57. Browne, J., & Prokesch, S. E. (1997). Unleashing the power of learning: An interview with British Petroleum’s John Browne. Harvard Business Review, 75, 146168. Campbell, K. (1997). How to compensate teams. Harvard Management Update (November). Camey,

M. (1998).

The

competitiveness

of networked

production:

The

role

of trust

and asset

specificity. Journal of Management Studies, 35,451-419. Collins, T. M., 62 Doorley, T. L. (1991). Teaming up for the 90s: A guide to internationul joint ventures and strategic alliances. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin. Coutu, D. L. (1998). Organization: Trust in virtual teams. Harvard Business Review, 76, 2&2 1. D’Amours, S., Montreuil, B., Lefrancois, P., & Soumis, F. (1999). Networked manufacturing: The impact of information sharing. International Journal of Production Economics, 58, 63-19.

DUANE

36

WINDSOR

Davidow, W. H., & Malone, M. S. (1992). The virtual corporation: Structuring and revitalizing the corporationfor the 2Ist century. New York E. Burlingame Books/Harpe Business. Denison, D., Hart, S. L., & Kahn, J. A. (1996). From chimneys to cross-functional teams: Developing and validating a diagnostic model. Academy of Management Journul, 39, 1005-1023. Dill, W. R. (1958). Environment as an influence on managerial autonomy. Administrative Science Quarterly,

2, 409-443.

Drucker, P. F. (1995). Managing in a time of great change. New York: Truman Talley Books/ Dutton. Drucker, P. F. (1999). Management challengesfor the 21st century. New York HarperBusiness. Duncan, W. J. (1989). Organizational culture: “Getting a fix” on an elusive concept. Academy of Management

Executive,

3,229-236.

Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43,26-49. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review,

14,488-511.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16,620-621. Eom, S. B., & Lee, C. K. (1999). Viual teams: An information age opportunity of mobilizing hidden manpower. SAM Advanced Management Joumul, 64, 12-15 ff. Flexner, J. T. (1968). George Washington in the American Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown. Garvin, D. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71, 78-91. Geber, B. (1995). Virtual teams. Truining, 32, 3&40. Grant, R. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109-122. ‘* Grenier, R., & Metes, G. (1995). Going virtual: Moving your organization into the 21st century. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hendershot, A., with Bailey, G. (1996, August 26). How we brought teamwork to marketing. Wall Street Journal, AlO. Henry, J. E., & Hartzler, M. (1997). Vial teams: Today’s reality, today’s challenge. Quality Progress, 30, 108109. Hertz, D. B., & Rubenstein, A. H. (1953). Team research. Boston: Eastern Technical Publications (Columbia University, Department of Industrial and Management Engineering). Himmelfarb, G. (1952). Lani Acton: A study in conscience and politics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Howland, R. (1990). Values make the company: An interview with Robert Haas. Harvard Business Review, 68,133-144. ’ Jackall, R. (1988). Moral mazes: The worM of corporate managers. New York: Oxford University Press. Jack Welch: General Electric’s revolutionary. (1993). Hurvutd Business School, 9-394-065 (revised April 12, 1994). Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journul of Management Information Systems, 14, 29-64. Kanter, R. M. (1989). Becoming PALS: Pooling, allying, and linking across companies. Academy of Management Executive, 3, 183-193. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1992). The wisdom of teums: Creating the high-pet$xmance organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

International

virtual

Teams: Opportunities

and Issues

31

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 71, 111-120. King, R. T. (1998, May 20). Jeans therapy: Levi’s factory workers are assigned to teams, and morale takes a hit - Infighting rises, productivity falls as employees miss the piecework system. Wall Street Journal, Al, A6 Labarm, P. (1996, June-July). This organization is dis-organization. FastCompany, 77, 79-82. ~, W. G. (1994, September 26). The new corporate republics. Wall Street Journal, A14. Leonard, L, & Swap, W. (1999). When sparks fly: Igniting creativity in groups. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Lewis, R. (1998). Membership and management of a ‘virtual’ team: The perspectives of a research manager. R&D Management, 28,5-12. Lillie, M. (1996). Use web-building process to create a virtual team. Infoworld, 18, 50. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1987). A network model. Futurist,21,23-25. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1993a). Networking the world: People, corporations, communities, and nations. Futurist, 27, 9-12. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1993b). One plus one equals three. Small Business Reporfs, 18, 49-58. Lipnack, J., & Stamps. (1993~). The TeamNet factor: Bringing the power of boundary crossing into the heart of your business. Essex Junction, VT: Oliver Wight Publications. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1993/1994). The team solution or effective project management. Total Quality Environmental Management, 3,203-221. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1994). The best of both worlds. Inc., 16, 33. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology. New York: John Wiley. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1999a). Virtual teams. Executive Excellence, 16, 14-15. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1999b). Virtual teams: The new way to work. Planning Review, 27, 14-19. Mahoney, R. J. (1996). Beyond empowerment: Relevant ad hockery. St. Louis, MO: Center for the Study of American Business, Washington University, CEO Series Issue No. 1 (February). Maljers, F. A. (1992). Inside Unilever: The evolving transnational company. Harvard Business Review, 70,4&52. Malone, T. W. (1997). Is ‘empowerment’ just a fad? Control, decision-making, and IT. Sloan Management Review, 38,23-35. Malone, T. W., & Laubacher, R. J. (1998). The dawn of the e-lance economy. Harvard Business Review, 76, 144-152. Manz, C., & Sims, H. (1993). Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are building high-petforming companies. New York: John Wiley. Markels, A. (1997, March 25). After-merger advice busies the consultants. Wall Street Journal, C I, c20. Mathis, R. L., & Jackson, J. H. (1997). Human resource development (8th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: West. Maruca, R. F. (1998). How do you manage an off-site team? Harvard Business Review, 76, 2-10. Maynard, A. (1995). Reforming the NHS. In: M. Bishop, J. Kay & C. Mayer (Eds), The Regulatory Challenge (pp. 67-84). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. McGovern, P. J. (1990). The networked corporation. Chief Executive, 57,4&49. Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1994). Fit, failure, and the hull off ame: How companies succeed oi fail. New York: Free Press. Nelson, J. L. (1999). Lords of the ocean. New York: Pocket Books.

38

DUANE

WINDSOR

O&off, F. (1999). The horizon& organization. New York Oxford University Press. Pawar, K. S., & Shari& S. (1997). Physical or virtual team collocation: Does it matter? International Journal of Production Economics, 52, 282-290. Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74,61-78. Pouder, R., & St. John, C. H. (1996). Hot spots and blind spots: Geographic clusters of firms and innovation. Acaakmy of Management Review, 21,1192-1225. Preston, L. E., & Windsor, D. (1997). The rules of the game in the global economy: Policy regimes for international business (2nd ed.). Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic fradifions in modem Iraly. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rothstein, L. R. (1995). The empowerment effort that came undone. Harvard Business Review, 73, 4-11. Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,61-72. Sant, R., Bakke, D., & Wetlaufer, S. (1999). Org anizing for empowerment: An interview with AES’s Roger Sant and Dennis Bakke. Harvard Business Review, 77, 111-123. Schellhardt, T. (1997, February 13). Race-bias suit at S. C. Johnson raises some worker-team issues. Wall Street Journal, B7. The Scofsman (1999, February 27). Levi’s shrinks to fil. Sharing knowledge through BP’s virtual team network (1997). Harvard Business Review, 75, 152-153. Sbeff, D. (1996, June-July). Levi’s changes everything: An inside account of the most dramatic change program in American business. Fast Company, 65-74. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: Hew ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Stogdili, R. M. (1963). Team achievement under high motivation. Columbus, OH: B&au of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, Ohio State University, Research Monograph No. 113. Straus, S. G., Weisband, S. P., & Wilson, J. M. (1998). Human resource management practices in the networked organization: Impacts of electronic communication systems. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 5 (Supplement), 127-154. Suttling, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Managing the virtual team. Telecommunications, 31,61&t. Tapscott, D. (1995). The digital economy: Promise and peril in the age of networked intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tjosvold, D. (1991). Team organi?ation: An enduring competitive advantage. New York: John Wiley. Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Vial teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive, 12, 17-29. Unilever: A networked organization. (1996). Harvard Business Review, 74, 138-139. Walters, B. A., Peters, S., & Dess, G. G. (1994). Strategic alliances and joint ventures: Making them work. Business Horizons, 37.5-10. Wardell, C. (1998). The art of managing virtual teams: Eight key lessons. Harvard Managemenr Update (November). Warkentin, M. E., Sayeed, L., & Hightower, R. (1997). Viiual teams v-crsusfact-to-fact isxms; An exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decision Sciences, 28,975-996. Webcr, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizafion. New York: Free Press.

International

virtual

Teams:

Opportunities

and

Issues

39

R., Byham, W., 8~ Dixon, G. (1994). Inside teams: How 20 world-class organizations are winning through teamwork. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wedaufer, S. (1994). The team that wasn’t. Harvard Business Review, 72, 22-38. agwill, W. L. (19%. December 18). Models for successful mergers. Wall Street Journal, A14. Wellins,

TEAM IDENTITY FORMATION IN VIRTUAL TEAMS Dana Mansour-Cole Recreating teams inherent in virtual

in virtual mode team technology,

requires resolution of the challenges and opportunities as well as the development of a new team sociology. (Townsend,

DeMarie

& Hendrickson,

1998)

ABSTRACT Utilizing social identity theory as a framework, this chapter examines ideas concerning cyberspace collaboration. The dejining characteristics of virtual teams, differences between identijcation, and cohesion and trust-based approaches are reviewed. Ideas regarding the nature of virtual team development including a proposed model of virtual team identity are explored.

INTRODUCTION The research for this paper began with a search for a way to talk about the ties that would bind project team members who are not co-located: people who operate within virtual teams. Townsend, DeMarie and Hendrickson’s (1998) call for the development of a new sociology for virtual teams seemed on the mark, and recently it was echoed at a showcase debate (Academy of Management, 2000). The large audience of organizational researchers and practitioners agreed that virtual teamwork is not to be approached as simply Virtual Teams, Volume 8, pages 41-58. Copyright 0 2001 by Elsevier Science Ltd. AB rights of repmduction in any form reserved. ISBN: 0-7623-0843-S 41

DANA MANSOUR-COLE teamwork in a different context. There is also a growing body of anecdotal evidence that practitioners seek a theoretical justification for postponing or eliminating costly face-to-face team building meetings for their virtual teams (Mansour-Cole, 2000). Early on it appeared that propositions from social identity theory might provide some of the answers. In a special topic forum on organizational identity and identification, Albert, Ashforth and Dutton’s (2000) introductory article discusses why these constructs are important in contemporary organizations: Increasingly an organization must reside in the heads and hearts of its members. Thus, in the absence of an externalized bureaucratic structure, it becomes more important to have an internalized cognitive structure of what the organization stands for and where it intends to go - in short, a clear sense of the organization’s identity. A sense of identity serves as a rudder for navigating difficult waters (p. 13).

Like the study of virtual teams, the application of social identity theory (Albert & Whetton, 1985; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hogg & Abrams, 1993; Tajfel & Turner, 1985; Turner, 1982) to work environments in general and work teams in particular is underdeveloped. While there is not consensus regarding the definition of the terms, we do agree that identity and identification are root concepts that “travel easily across levels of analysis” (Albert et al., 2000, p. 13), providing a way to situate a person, organization or team within a social context. Identity provides a way to explain why individuals might act on behalf of team, and helps predict the direction and persistence of collective behaviors. In this chapter, social identity theory will serve as a framework to test ideas about cyberspace collaboration across boundaries. After an exploration of the defining characteristics of virtual teams, a review of the differences between identification, and cohesion or trust based approaches to member solidarity will follow. A social identity theory approach to team development will be presented. Finally, team identity will be integrated with ideas about the nature of virtual team development. Questions that guide future research and use of a model of virtual team identity to support positive virtual team performance will be reviewed. Dejining the Wrtual Team While there are probably good definitions or typologies of virtual teams elsewhere in this volume, virtual teaming is about small groups of people working on interdependent tasks across boundaries, supported by electronic technologies. Indeed, the spread of technologies and the language and training to support them has made virtual teaming possible or even desirable in work

TeamIdentity Form&on in virtual Teams

43

organizations. Virtual teams have one or more dimensions that are not shared: they are not collocated in physical space (different building, cities or even countries), time (both geographical and in attitudes toward time), and/or culture (different organizational cultures and/or national cultures). Whereas discontinuities in characteristics such as communication forms, technology, and interpersonal relationships are likely to decrease as technology advances rapidly, these three distinctions are likely to endure as we begin to know more about virtual teams. Some virtual teams are set up as temporary structures, while others are designed to be permanent structures addressing ongoing issues. In either case, membership can be fluid, as organizations attempt to capitalize on the ability to link synergistic resources and access top talent. Some treatments of virtual teaming explicitly or implicitly use the term virtual in the sense that it is “almost like” or “not factually, but in essence” like a team. Early in their text, Lipnack and Stamps (1997) argue against thinking that virtual teams only appear to exist. Virtual teams are “virtual” in the newer sense of the word: they are fast moving teams in a different realm of existence (digital reality). A virtual team is real. After a quick review of the basic tenants of team identity, the next section will explore how the “almost like” bias shapes research and prescriptive models of virtual team development.

Social Identity and Work Teams Social identities are conceptions of self, and of others, which are derived from membership in social groups. We know that people categorize themselves and others on the basis of varied salient perceptual dimensions. In essence, individuals cognitively draw an ameba shaped boundary representing their true self, and then fill the inside of this “circle” with groups for whom they have some identification. Actual membership in these groups is not a requirement: individuals often identify with groups for which they admire but do not actively seek membership. These categorizations are often characterized as crude, inevitable and flexible, and they depend on the characteristics of the perceiver, the perceived and the social context (Prentice & Miller, 1999). People derive part of their identity and sense of self from the organizations or work groups to which they belong. Recently there is a lot of interest in how the self is defined by group membership, and how self-definition produces behavior that supports group effectiveness (Hogg & Terry, 2OCKQ. In order to capitalize on the promise of virtual teamwork, individual members must make an investment of self in the work of the ~C+ITI Tit;involvement depends on the development of a team identity or ;I c~I;I\~II~(,,II 11:I of the team on the basis of important or essential characterlsnc\ I~:II Iii<

44

DANA

MANSOUR-COLE

enduring and unique to the team. In short, a team identity answers the question “who or what are we” for team members, and “who or what are they” for persons who are outside of the team. (Albert & Whetton, 1985; Mansour-Cole & Scott, 1998). The answer will vary in content and in salience or strength for members who have differential access to information about each other and about the team. The team has a psychological reality independent of interaction, cohesion, or interdependence among its members. Typically one or all of three motives will increase the value of the team’s identity for individual members: (1) the need to enhance and maintain an overall positive image of one’s self; (2) the need to perceive oneself as competent; and (3) the need to perceive of oneself as consistent over time and situation (Marcus & Wurf, 1987). Team identity is stronger when it contributes positively to the selfperception of team members.

CURRENT PRESCRIPTIONS FOR VIRTUAL TEAM DEVELOPMENT It is hard to break free from attempts to force fit existing knowledge about teamwork to the new realities of virtual teamwork. A growing but still minority perspective in the popular literature (e.g. McDonald, 1999) suggests that members who are likely to work in virtual teams are very individualistic. This perspective suggests that virtual team members should forgo traditional teambuilding and trust building exercises, since virtual teamwork should start with an emphasis on individual responsibility rather than group thinking. Successful virtual team members rapidly identify key issues in work, engage in brainstorming without regard for credit, and then work feverishly to do their agreed upon part of a project. They are practical and task focused. Thus, a good virtual team leader would clarify the task, performance, and reward linkages, much like prescriptions ini path goal theory (House & Mitchell, 1974; House, 1996) or substitutes for Ileadership theories (e.g. Kerr 8z Jermier, 1978). Prescriptions from this perspective emphasize the more efficient, top down approaches to team mission and role definition, suggesting the virtual team be “given” a team name, motto, even e-mail signature line or logo to assist in building team identity (Haywood, 1998). Only if the team is expected to continue working together on many successive projects is cohesion and affect an important consideration. It is more common in workbooks and “how to” articles on virtual teaming (e.g. Young, 1998; Haywood, 1998) to include sections on personalizing member to member relationships. The implication is that the best, or even the

rem

Idengv

Formation

in virtual

Teams

45

onlr way to enjoy the promise of interdependent project teams is to create them witi or infuse them with a sense of liking, social attraction, and recognition of individual interpersonal relationships. Some suggest that the first two of ~c~m’~ (1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) stages of team development, forming and storming, are best achieved at the same time - and at the same place. They concede that the last two stages may be done remotely, but only if the first two stages are complete. Traditional models of team development are not without their detractors. One criticism centers on the idea that the result of collaboration is not simply the sum of member’s original knowledge and contributions: but rather that new insight comes from collective thinking. In the team, members are able to confirm the validity of their own personal knowledge, make more meaningful associations, and actually create new knowledge. In a gradual group development model such as Tuckman’s (1965) forming, storming, norming, performing (and adjourning), this cognitive transition of members is not explicitly acknowledged. Yet we know that as team members become more unified, they change their attitude and thinking style, interacting as a team with the environment. In another common descriptive model of team effectiveness, the punctuated equilibrium model, Gersick (1988, 1989) recognizes a cognitive transition among members. She posits that time constraints indicate a change in awareness and activity level, as well as a change in the level of analysis of information by team members. As members navigate those transition points, they begin to think and act like a team. Social identity theory is attractive partially because it makes this cognitive transition explicit: individuals adopt a team identity to achieve a better understanding of the tasks and behavior requireg for team output. Members transition from thinking and feeling like a distinct individual to feeling and thinking like a representative of a social group. What are the limitations of using a social attraction and role theory to explain virtual team member behavior? Some limitations are uncovered in results of empirical tests while others are uncovered by attempting to apply the concepts in the field. There have been direct tests of the social attraction hypothesis (see Hogg, 1992, 1993) that show that social attraction and personal attraction are relatively independent. While personal attraction is associated with interpersonal similarity and influenced by interpersonal relations, social attraction is influenced by identification with the team, and associated with perceived prototypicality. Major criticisms of group cohesiveness as the primary goal of the socialization process for team development are also found in the literature (e.g. Hogg, 1992).

DANA MANSOUR-COLE The adoption of a group socialization perspective shows that team formation is not a simple transition from nonmember to member status. For example, Moreland (1987) views four distinct portions of social integration: l

l

l

l

Environmental integration refers to the way certain physical, social or cultural environments provide resources (e.g. proximity, communication networks) that strengthen bonds between people; Behavioral integration refers to mutual interdependence in order to satisfy individual needs; Affective integration refers to the strengthening of bonds on the basis of shared feelings; and Cognitive integration refers to the role of recognition of shared personal characteristics in the strengthening of bonds.

Unfortunately, Moreland and colleagues use role theory and cohesion rather than social identity theory to explain the basic psychological processes involved in group socialization: evaluation, commitment, and role transition. They propose that group solidarity is contingent upon commitment, which in turn is influenced by assessments of “rewardingness” and by role transitions. Reframing their argument using identity theory may be helpful in making this model more accessible. In the recent delineation of Brewer and Gardner’s (1996) classificqtion of identification processes (Brickson, 2000) we see that all members identify themselves as individuals, relationship partners, and team members in some contexts. Activating one of the three identity orientations at a given point in time, as well as over time, is a function of forces at various levels of analysis: personality traits, relationship qualities, team composition, organizational structure and culture, societal norms and others. These three loci of selfdefinition are distinct identity orientations with their own social motivations, significant self-knowledge requirements (e.g. know traits, roles and/or group prototype), and self-evaluative frame of reference (Brickson, 2000). The loci influence whether we see opselves in terms of personal traits, in terms of the roles we serve for other organizational members, or in terms of team memberships. They also influence how we evaluate ourselves, and our motivational state. For example, when a personal identity orientation is made salient, we observe more self-interest and individualistic behavior, with individuals using comparisons with others as a frame of reference for their own self-conception. A team member will focus on what skills he or she brings to the team, and may be motivated by personal gain from interaction with team members. When members perceive of themselves in terms of their roles, they activate a relational orientation and evaluate themselves based upon their

rem

~&&ty

Form&ion

in virtual

Teams

47

effectiveness at in-role performance (Markus & Kitayam, 1991). An example of a primary motivation for a team member is to be a good communication partner: that member would judge her performance on her own and coworker’s satisfaction with some role standard. When members are motivated to ensure the welfare of the group, often relative to other groups, they activate a collective identity orientation. When someone identities strongly with their team or the team’s prototype, self worth is determined by how the group or team compares with other groups. Promoting the well-being and reputation of the team becomes a primary motivation for member behavior. This framework for social identification orientation insures that we view identity as tnultifaceted and dynamic. It also suggests that the individual and team based identity are areas that need further examination and research. Hogg sums up the differences between the social identity approach z!~i t!?~ cohesiveness approach to groups this way: “The former originates in .+i: analysis of large-scale intergroup relations, pivots on a cognitive definition cf the social group, and theorizes in terms of categorization, while the latter originates in an analysis of small interactive aggregates, pivots on a hi-gdr affective definition of the group, and theorizes in terms of interpersonal attraction” (Hogg, 1992, p. 88). With the discontinuities and boundary issues inherent in virtual teams, relying on interpersonal attraction for members who are not collocated encourages characterization of virtual teams as “nlmnst” 3’; good as a “real team”. In the next section we will use the social idcnti:), approach to model identity at the virtual team 1~~1

A TEAM

IDENTITY MODEL OF VIRTUAL DEVELOPMENT

TE,Ul

When we propose a new organizing framework. theorists otten Insert a line :Ind box diagram of the process at about this point in an article in order to 31IOU ~11~: reader to “see” what the propositions are and how they work together. 1 WI i i, I (I! illustration, insert a story instead. When we hear the term “team”, it ih h,ud i, break from the image of face to face interactions among people in thc‘samc organization or unit. Replacing this image when we discuss virtual teams is 3; important and powerful task in model building. The metaphor below was developed and shared recently (Mansour-Cole, NUO) as a way to UK L~JL identity theory to think about the process of virtual team developn~~~~~.i .,h, ;L!: metaphors, it has strengths and weaknesses. It provides an engaging ;IINI , kc*. picture of what the theory is saying, but it cannot capture all :I\~x~~I,. I1/ concepts (Morgan, 1997).

48

DANAMANSOUR-COLE Developing a virtual team may be like putting together a mosaic. The best and most beautiful mosaics are created with an eye for each piece as well as to the gestalt (whole). They are not thrown together aimlessly, nor is the process linear and inflexible. Mosaics and virtual teams are planned, nurtured and allowed to develop. How do you start? It begins with pieces of clay tile on a surface. Each piece of tile is a potential virtual team member. They are all VERY different: different textures [located in different times], different shapes [from different cultures], different colors [places or location] and different sizes [different skills, abilities, personalities and expectations]. Maybe someone else [your team leader?] put the pieces there. Some pieces may be left over from other projects. Some pieces may have been ordered or bought especially for this project. Maybe even the leader isn’t sure how every piece got there. You start examining all the tiles . even before you begin to work together. You may form initial impressions, seeing some tiles as less useful or desirable than others, but you do not discard them. You might even ask others how some pieces, for example, two oddly shaped orange tiles, got to the table. You think that you will not need those tiles. You also check the location of the nearest tile store, just in case you need some additional brightly colored tile pieces. The first piece you lay is important: others build on it. That first piece of tile represents team identity: in it is the answer to the question “who (or what) are we” or, for others external to the team “who or what are they?’ It is the focal point of the mosaic - the identity tile. Members may need to shape that first tile a little, as the team examines and works with it. But this tile soon becomes central, distinctive and enduring in the mosaic, setting the tone for the rest of the design. You begin placing pieces around the identity tile. Perhaps you’ll need a small triangular green piece here, a crosshatched yellow piece there. Just as some members need to identify with the team or match more closely the prototypical member, some tiles will seem more vibrant near the focal point. Others who do not value or need the team identity as much readily add their colors to the outer locations, making up the border, still important to the overall design. Some pieces will require some trimming (or training) in order to fit, and other tiles not originally planned for may need to be located. Often, those oddly shaped orange pieces become important to the design of the mosaic, and first impressions are changed. The less favored odd piece or member may provide just the shape or color needed to tie the whole together. You need grout for a mosaic. Technology is the grout. If the grout is not of the proper consistency, the mosaic will either never set up, or never have a smooth finish. You need to use similar grout for the entire piece. Team members W$I have vastly different technology.(or grout) get very tired of waiting for another tile or section of tiles to set up, and may slide around or move out of place. It is also important to space tiles uniformly, that is, for leaders to attend to fair spacing of the tiles, letting each piece show its full value. If the disbursement is not equal, leaders should correct it, or declare artistic license and explain what principles have guided this variation in the design. Sometimes, even after it is grouted in, a tile will need to be removed. It may break or fade, or it may be needed for another mosaic. This may be an easy task, or it may require lots of pressure and equipment, depending on the groundwork laid. High and publicly noticeable exit barriers must be considered by members as they judge whether team identity is important to them. The ease with which tiles can be replaced characterizes the flexibility of the design or the salience of team membership.

49

kM Identity Formation in virtuai Teams you watch the vimtal team develop, and note how much the size of the identity tile changes the art. When the identity tile is small, the pattern is more disbursed, and appears more uniform. Individual tiles easily are compared with others in the piece, and the best tiles appear to be those that fit in to the symmetrical design and emulate the prototypical member piece. For teams with a large or stronger identity, member pieces can retain their individuality and still contribute to the overall design in a pleasing manner. In the most interesting modem mosaics YOU can see the distinct and pleasant shape of each individual piece,but meaning comes from observing the whole. Uniformly patterned mosaics often are viewed as utilitarian or craft projects, whereas those with distinct variations arc seen as innovative and real works of art: rare, uncommon and special. In order to hang on a real (or virtual!) wall, the mosaic needs a backing board. Organizational culture and top management support provide the board for the team mosaic. The support allows creativity, risk taking, shared decision making, interdependent rewards. and others to be nurtured within the team. Virtual teams, like true mosaics. arc not lightweight, they need to be supported. TOO often teams are created, only to find that the backing board is not available. The virtual team is quickly disbanded, and the team’s process and/or performance either cannot be replicated or completed. Other virtual teams are led to believe a board is ready, but when it comes time to use the support,the board is too flimsy, less solid than what it was represented to be. A warped or cracked backing may support the team for a very short time, but soon the mosaic begins to crumble as the flaws in the backing buckle under the strain of actually supporting something of substance (Mansour-Cole,

2000,

p, 2).

Metaphor Translation Antecedents Team identity formation begins before the team members interact. Traditional social identity theory reminds us that member composition is so central to team identification that individual members judge who is on what side of the team boundary. Members also make judgments about how other members were selected to be on the inside. Members do not assume that all other potential virtual team members were selected based on skill and ability: values, attitudes, expectations, fulfilling organizational goals or management preferences are increasingly used to determine potential assignment (Nahavandi & Aranda. 1994). We know that in the absence of the opportunity to get know people fact: 1~1 face, information gathering is more important. If access to informatiori ik limited or suspect, reputation becomes an increasingly important decision making guideline. While this fact usually becomes the launching pad IOI discussions about the importance and difficulties of developing trust in virtuai teams (e.g. Goldberg, 1999), it could also launch a discussion about team identity. Different selection processes will convey different messages to individuals about job competence (Mansour-Cole & Scott, 1998; Nadler,

DANA

MANSOUR-COLE

Altman & Fisher, 1979). If individuals are not chosen on the basis of competence but rather on preference or other leader initiatives, individuals will be less likely to identify with the team. Most at risk for decreased identification are those members with low self efficacy or those who come from organizationally or culturally marginal groups. The team’s reputation will also be affected. While skill based selection may increase perceived team legitimacy for non-members and the value of team identity for members, preferential selection processes may stigmatize the team (Mansour-Cole & Scott, 1998). Members do not just size each other up, they also examine the task at hand. An appraisal of project attributes is undertaken by potential team members. A cognitive calculation of project success is important, as is the novelty of the task, the importance of the task, and the ramifications of poor project performance. Members evaluate whether there is risk or potential damage to the reputation of the team or its members, and team identity will be stronger where the team’s proximity to positive consequences is high and to negative consequences is low. Members also consider the expectations of project success in terms of the morality or culturally correct action (Suchman, 1993, and team identity is stronger when there is greater social consensus on the desirability of the team’s task. A final antecedent to team identity is that of exit barriers. Particularly for virtual teams that are fluid and temporary, consideration of exiting teams is influential on defining oneself with the group. Team identity implies members link their fate with the group. If team affiliation is well publicized or obvious, that link is made public, and social identification should increase. High exit barriers such as rituals specific to exiting a group, or an inability of the team to change their own membership may suggest to members that it will be difficult or impossible to leave the team before project completion without negative consequences. In this way, high exit barriers should also increase team identity, although the assessment of project attributes will mediate this relationship. Interaction

Team identity formation directly produces member solidarity, cooperation and unity of actions and values so as to make the successful attainment of shared goals more likely (Turner, 1987). The process is not just behavioral but also cognitive and emotional: an individual must desire membership in the team and what it represents. Identification is based on attraction to purpose. Once the team identity is adopted, Wilson (1998) argues that the team becomes the unit of analysis, and the social environment is always interpreted by referencing the team rather than referencing the self. So, while social identity theory provides

Team Identity Formation

in Virtual Teams

51

a reason that individual members might be motivated to move closer to the team prototype, individuals focus their efforts on collective tasks and benefits. The process of team identity building is just that - a process. Team identity is not grouted into the piece immediately. Interacting in a cooperative manner may transform members’ representations of other members from belonging to separate groups (cultural, time zones, organizations, etc.) to one group - the virtual team. In linguistic terms, members transform their perceptions of “us and them” to the more inclusive “we”. In fact, individuals can reduce OI eliminate categorization by defining groups at a higher level of category inclusiveness, thus reducing intergroup bias and conflict. Attitudes toward former out-group members become more positive as the team develops a proteam bias (Gaertner, Dovidio, Nier, Ward & Banker, 1999). Early research supported the hypothesis that cooperation reduces bias (e.g. Sherif, 1966) and recent studies of recategorization confirm this. It is also important to note that developing a common team identity does not necessarily require that each team forsake other less inclusive group or teanl identities completely. Individuals belong to multiple groups (Ferdman, I995 ). some of which are nested identities or subgroups within one overall group, while other identities are conceived of as distinct units. Studies conducted 01 reported by Gaertner and colleagues (Gaertner et al., 1999) suggest that dual identity can actually predict a more positive team relationship if the intIi\~idu:d groups are not in direct conflict (e.g. time zones, nationalities, location. home department, etc.). If leading a virtual team is about managing discontinuities, then the work ot those who study cultural divides is particularly salient. It is in this literature that we again find support for conceptualizing virtual team formation using team identity propositions. The literature suggests that development of a commot~ identity can change the tone and direction of intergroup relations. Identity appears to “have the capacity to activate cognitive and motivational processes that change the tone and direction of immediate intergroup relations, changex that can, in turn, initiate other, more stable processes and pathways toward Ihe achievement of more productive, harmonious relations between groups” (Gaertner et al., p. 204). As in the metaphor, team identity eventually heconlc,. central and distinctive (and often enduring), setting the tone for tcalr~ interaction and performance. Leader and Team Member Reaction The role of culture is particularly important for social identity theory, although organizational culture has received far less attention than national culture. Since team identification is stronger when the identity sets it apart in a

DANA MANSOUR-COLE positively valued way, the uniqueness of the team may be valued if the shared norms of the organization include innovation and creativity. The fit between team decisions and existing organizational norms also provides an important signaling effect. Articulation of a team’s mission will influence the development of a team identity, and leaders must work with members on a statement that explains team member activity to insiders and outsiders. Leaders play an important role in communicating what it is about the team that is distinctive from others. The leadership role is not only one based on coaching and cheerleading for the team, since outcomes from strong team identity are not always positive. First, for teams with a high identity team there is agreement on team image and purpose, but teamwork is not necessarily an agreeable experience. Teamwork is driven by the need to get a job done well (West, 1996; Wilson, 1998). This hard work may not enhance or be congruent with a team who has adopted an identity such as “we are the fun first team” or the “creative team” that is not disciplined enough to stop brainstorming and start working toward project completion. While more research needs to be done, some have looked toward the context to answer the question: when is group identity divisive, and when is it congenial to democracy and positive intergroup relations? To answer, Gut-in et al. (1999) have shown that there is no inevitable relationship between group identity and outgroup hostility. A more common problem that is dealt with in the literature is the concern that a team with high team identity may be more prone to groupthink (Janis, 1972; Aldag & Fuller, 1993), and teams with high strong team identity may more easily revert to stereotypes. Since there is a lot of depersonalization of perception in the self-categorization theory, we are less likely to think of members, including ourselves, as complex and multidimensional individuals. Team members will not only stereotype across teams, but within their own team, by comparing individual members to a “prototype” suggested through the team identity. The danger of stereotyping members is enhanced by the lean mode of communication inheient in virtual team functioning. The medium of the virtual reality team does not yet provide the myriad of physical and social cues during interaction and communication that remind us to celebrate the differences of our team members. This becomes an important leadership competency and potential member role. Not all team identities are socially desirable ones. What happens when a team is known for its blunders? When a team is marginalized by the larger organization? What happens to the member who does not agree with the evolving team identity? Again we can look to the social identity literature to investigate whether the member will approach others, perhaps with the hope of

TeamIdentity Formation in Wrtual Teams

53

persuading or shaping understanding or whether they will avoid and withdraw from the group, even avoiding discussing the source of disagreement if they must interact (Miller & Prentice, 1999). The keys to member reaction are information and culture. Information about the variability of opinions, behaviors and perceptions within one’s own category and within other’s category enhances the range of choices, including the choice to identify with the team. Drawing on other theories such as the contact hypotheses (Brewer & Miller, 1984, 1988; Cook, 1984; Gaertner et al., 1993), which provides a broad outcome -focused perspective on the value of contact for promoting positive interteam relations, in the virtual environment we emphasize the facilitation of contact through common communication technology. Since perceptions vary widely across cultures and time, we should expect some disagreement about the value of team identity. In some cases this disagreement may encourage members to simply move away from the core or prototypical team identity classification. Just like stereotypes, beliefs about a team identity can change in two ways: the content of member’s beliefs about a social category can change, or their ontological classification of the social category can change. There remains much work to be done in order to use what we know about social categorizations, stereotyping, group identification and cultural contact to improve the outcomes of “contact” via a virtual team.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS Using The Virtual Team Identity Approach Hogg (1992) closes The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness with the message that the real benefit from social identification analysis may be that “we are now asking the correct questions.” Indeed, many questions surface as we use social identity theory to explain virtual team functioning. How do we proceed with research, which follows the team identity approach to virtual team design and functioning? First, I would caution rcwarcher\ IV answer the following questions (from Pratt & Foreman, 2000, p. 143) uhc~ they engage in virtual team identity research: where do identities come I’IXII!: (theoretical origins and antecedents); where do identities reside‘? (iclentit> claimants); to whom or what do identities refer? (identity targets); who is viewing the identities? (identity audience); and when in time are the identities - past, present or future? In addition to these questions, Wilson (1998) suggests that the testing of team identity propositions should include discourse analysis

DANA MANSOUR-COLE

(capturing changes in how members refer to their team and work) or content analysis of behavior (discovering how members measure success). For practitioners and researchers, there are some other interesting issues. An essential step would be field tests of the relationships between virtual team identity and team effectiveness. In an initial examination of the prescriptions from this chapter to virtual teams in two very different contexts, a positive correlation between high team identity and team effectiveness could be observed (Mansour-Cole, 2ooO). In the very public and seamless performance of a broadcast news overseas virtual team, all characteristics of high team identity were present. In a sales team with only some indicators of a welldeveloped team identity, the team was judged as underperforming andready for structural reorganization. Initial laboratory studies with virtual student teams also replicate this relationship, but more field and laboratory research is clearly needed. Regardless of basic assumptions about their motivation to work in a virtual team, we are subjected to prescriptions about team development that are variations on the same theme. Involving the right people (internal and external to the organization), defining the virtual team purpose as the guide for interaction (alternately, the purpose is either defined by the team or it is done for them) and establishing excellent communication links among members, that can eventually support trusting relationships (Lipnack & Stamps, 1997) are key components. But there are real difficulties in and arguments against the use of tested socialization and training techniques, some of which were presented earlier. Traditional team building exercises are difficult to facilitate in the virtual environment. How do you know that the person is using their real information or personality to answer trust questions? If communication is asynchronous, there is ample time to consciously or even unconsciously make information more personally enhancing, socially desirable and/or closer to the emerging team prototypical member. We have read anecdotal accounts of persons keeping yellow sticky notes on their computer to remind them of the characteristics of each “role” &personality they assume during different chats. The easy answer is to concede defeat and request all initial meetings are held face to face. Even videoconferencing these initial meetings has been criticized, since varying levels of technical sophistication at the different meeting nodes may cause perceptual biases based on technology glitches and not on standard interpersonal behaviors. The classic example here is interpretation of a pause in conversation, that may result from the speaker collecting his thoughts, waiting for other links to catch up, pausing for dramatic effect, or someone accidentally taking their site off mute and then coughing, seeming to want into the conversation. Depending upon the interpretation, the speaking member is seen

TeamIdentity Formation in virtual Teams

55

as a patient and sensitive communicator, or as one who loses his ideas and is easily distracted. Virtual team identity formation highlights the importance of establishing a rationale for teamwork and identification with the team in the early initiating stages. Once team identity is established, members can select and screen out information and relate information from the environment to their team purpose (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994; Wilson, 1998). Early team building exercises should focus on task accomplishments, since the exertion of true team effort that is valuable to the organization conveys a sense of the team’s worth to potential members and enhances the team’s reputation for non members. As Wilson says, “When team members understand the need for teamwork and expect it to be successful, information about the resources assigned to the team, task clarity, and the expected team output for the organization influence their identity and behavior” (p. 940). And finally, the question of “should we meet” takes on added importance for virtual teams. In teams that begin and function without face to face meetings for a long time, will suddenly meeting the members result in an identity collision - as we recalculate whether team members we just interacted with actually embody the prototypical team characteristics? Or will the members flush with pride as they stand and observe a sea of persons with similar identity markers (t-shirts, pins, hats), much like one does when their national anthem ii; sung by a crowd at a sporting event? If teams only meet infrequently. is thcr~ time to form real bonds of friendship among all team members, or is this more likely to result in small friendship dyads or cliques within the team? Since interpersonal and group based liking are produced by different mechanism:, (Hogg & Hains, 1998), there is a possibility that they may co-occur in virtual teams. Are the propositions about three different foci for social identity correct? Virtual team identity describes a social contextual process of how individuals process information and are motivated to work and think as a team. Understanding virtual teamwork through the lens of social identification provides a model that is flexible and can integrate potentially overlapping multiple memberships, such as the member who works in more than OIK project team. In this paper 1 suggest that the study of virtual teams may provide a setting for the research and thinking that will expand social identity theory. keeping the focus of research questions off interpersonal relationships and on group solidarity issues. As important, propositions from social identity theory may provide answers to questions about how to get the most out of this new organizational form.

DANA

56

MANSOUR-COLE

REFERENCES Albert, S., Ashfotth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Organizational identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25, 13-17. Albert, S., & Whetton, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In: L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in Organizutional Behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 263-295). Greenwich, CT JAI Press. Aldag, R. J., & Fuller, S. R. (1993). Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 533-548. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management

Review,

14,20-39.

Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. E. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In: N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds), Groups in Contact: The Psychology of Desegregation (pp. 281-303). New York: Academic Press. Brewer, M. B. (1988). Contact and cooperation: When do they work? In: P Katz L D. Taylor @Is), Eliminating Racism: Pn$les in Controversy (pp. 315-25). New York Plenum Press. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93. Brickson, S. (2000). The impact of identity orientation on individual and organizational outcomes in demographically diverse settings. Academy of Management Review, 25, 82-101. Cook, S. W. (1984). Cooperative interaction in multi-ethnic contexts. In: N. Miller & M. Brewer (Eds), Groups in Contact: The Psychology of Desegregation (pp. 291-302). Or@do, Florida: Academic Press. Ferdman, B. M. (1995). Cultural identity and diversity in organizations: Bridging the gap between group differences and individual uniqueness. In: M. M. Chemers, S. Oskamp & M. A. Constanzo (Eds), Diversity in Organizations: New Perspectives for a Changing Workplace (pp. 3761). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Machmart, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common intergroup identity model: Recategorization and-the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, l-26. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Nier, J. A., Ward, C. M., & Banker, B. S. (1999). Across cultural divides: the value of a superordinate identity. In: D. A. Prentice & D. T. Miller (Eds), Cultural Divides: Understanding and Overcoming Group Conflict New York Russel Sage I Foundation. Gcrsick, C. J. C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31,941. Gersick, C. J. C. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management

Journal,

32,276309.

Goldberg, B. (1999). Overcoming high-tech anxiety: thriving in a wired world. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. Haywood, M. (1998). Managing Virtual Teams: Practical techniques for high-technology project managers. Boston: Artech House. Hogg, M. A.(1992) The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. New York New York University Press.

Team tdentiq Hogg,

Formation

in Virtual Teams

51

M. A. (1993). Group cohesiveness: A critical review and some new directions. Europeun Review of Social Psychology, 4, 85-l 11. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1993). Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives. Hemel Hempstead and New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf & Prentice-Hall. Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. (1998). Cohesiveness and groupthink. European Journal of Socicrl Psychology, 28, 323-341. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 2.5, 121-140. House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323-352. House, R. .I., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Contemporary Business, 3. 81-98. Janis, I. L. (1972). Kcfims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement, Organizational Behavior and Human Pegormance, 22, 3755403. Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journul qf Management, 20,403-438. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual Teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Mansour-Cole, D., & Scott, S. (1998) Team identity formation before team interaction: Understanding contextual antecedents. Proceedings of the Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management (IBAM6), Orlando, Florida, 162-169. Mansour-Cole, D. (2000). The art of virtual team development. Unpublished manuscript. Markus, H. R., & Kitayam, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. Markus, H., & Wurf E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social-psychological assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 38299-337. McDonald, T. (1999). A whole new ball game. Successful Meetings, 48, 19. McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Miller, D<,& Prentice, D. (1999). Some consequences of a belief in group essence: The category divide hypothesis. In: D. Prentice & D. Miller (Eds), Understanding and Overcoming Group ConJlict. New York: Sage. Moreland, R. L. (1985). Social Categorizations and the assimilation of “new” group members, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1173-l 190. Morgan, G. (1997). Imaginization: New mindsets for seeing, organizing, and managing, San Francisco and Thousand Oaks, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. and Sage Publications. Nadler, A., Altman, A., & Fisher, J. D.(1979). Helping is not enough: Recipient’s reactions to aid as a function of positive & negative information about self. Journal of Personality. 47. 615-628. Nahavandi, A., & Aranda, E. (1994). Restructuring teams for the re-engineered organization. The Academy of Management Executive, 8.5848. Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. 0. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. Academy of Management Review, 25, 18-42. Prentice & Miller (1999). In: D. Prentice & D. Miller (Eds), Cultural Divides: Understanding und overcoming Group Conflict. New York Sage.

58

DANA

MANSOUR-COLE

Sherif, M. (1966). In comnwn predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Boston: Addison-Wesley. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management

Journal,

20.571610.

Tajfel, H., &Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In: S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds), Psychology of Inter-Group Relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive, 12, 17-29. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organization

Studies,

2,41w2.

Turner, J. C. (1982). Toward a cognitive redefmition of the social group. In: H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social Identity and Intergmup Relations (pp. 15-40). Cambridge, England Cambridge University Press. Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group. In: J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, I? J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher & M. S. Wetherell (Eds), Rediscovering the Social Group: A SelfCategorization Theory (pp. 1941). Oxford: Blackwell. Young, Ron (1998). The wide-awake club. People Management, 4,4U9. West, M. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680494.

Wilson, M. (1998). F’utting the “team” into teamwork Alternative theoretical contributions for contemporary management practice. Human Relations, 51.927-944.

ASSESSINGTHECLIMATEFOR CREATIVITYINVIRTUALTEAMS Jill E. Nemiro ABSTRACT This chapter describes the preliminary development and testing of a survey instrument, the Virtual Team Creative Climate (WCC) instrument, designed to assess the work environment for creativity for virtual teams. The VTCC is made up of eleven scales representative of dimensions that influence virtual team members’ creativity: acceptance of ideas and constructive tension; challenge; collaboration; dedication/commitment; freedom; goal clarity; information sharing; management encouragement; personal bond; sufJicient resources and time; and trust. The eleven scales are then collapsed into three broader essential components necessary for virtual team creativity: connection, raw materials, and management and team member skills (Nemiro, 1998, 2000). To test the reliability of the VTCC: the instrument was given to 77 management students, who also gave feedback on its design, format, and wording of questions. All eleven scales are described in detail, and reliability levels and sample items are also included. In addition, a sample graphic display of feedback from the VTCC is presented. It is suggested that the VTCC can be a valuable diagnostic tool for assessing the environment of creativity in a virtual team, and for suggesting areas for improvement.

Virtual Teams, Volume 8, pages 9-84. 0 2001 Published by Elsevier Science ISBN: 0-7623-0843-S

Ltd.

59

JILL E. NEMIRO

INTRODUCTION Creativity is increasingly becoming a critical topic for contemporary organizations. Perhaps one of the most crucial reasons for organizations to promote creativity has been global competition. To meet the demands of fierce global competition, organizational structures are changing, becoming increasingly more flexible. These structures are characterized by such terms as virtual, boundary-less, or networked (Davidow & Malone, 1992; Galbraith, 1995; O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994). Advances in information technology have made feasible these types of organizational structures, in which independent firms across the globe join together and function as if they were a single corporation. Global competition has not only created a dire need for organizational creative efforts; it has forced companies to get products out faster. Teamwork in the virtual corporation is essential to tap into the best talent to create the highest quality and fastest response to customer needs. I&-tuaZ teams are groups of geographically dispersed organizational members who communicate and carry out their activities through information technology (Kristof, Brown, Sims & Smith, 1995; Lipnack & Stamps, 1997; Nemiro, 1998). Alas, the traditional office, conceptualized as a collection of cubicles in a high rise, is shrinking as individuals are finding themselves working in an “anywhere/anytime” mode, connected to co-workers through information technology (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994). Virtual team structures may lead to higher levels of team creativity as a result of more openness, flexibility, diversity, and added access to information as compared to more traditional group structures. However, it may be extremely difficult to build a sense of personal connection and trust in these types of structures - elements crucial to high levels of creativity (Ekvall, Arvonen & Waldenstrom-Lindblad, 1983; Geber, 1995; Nerniro, 1998). In designing virtual teams, we cannot ignore the social context of such arrangements. Technology allows for the el+ronic connection of geographically spread out individuals, but it does not necessarily lead to effective personal connection, communication and creativity. Virtual corporations and teams cannot function without information technology. But technology alone is not the answer to the problems of working across geographical and cultural boundaries. The ultimate answers to these problems lie in the realm of human and organizational relations and creating work environments that bring out the best in people involved in these virtual structures. What then can team designers, team leaders, and managers do to help virtual teams realize their creativity? The answer to that question is relatively simple

Assessingthe Climate for Creativiw in Virtual Teams

61

- create a work environment thatfosters and supports creativity. In this chapter, I will describe an instrument that has been developed to assess the climate for creativity in virtual teams, and the conceptual model on which this instrument is based. Relevant Concepts To begin, several critical concepts need to be addressed and clarified, including: (a) What is creativity?; (b) What is organizational climate, and how is it different from the broader construct of organizational culture?; (c) What is a team, and how is it different from a work group?; and finally, (d) What are the distinguishing characteristics of a virtual team? A Dejnition of Creativity Nearly all of the pioneering work on creativity focused on the study of the creative person, attempting to identify the unique qualities and characteristics of creative individuals. Studies of creative persons typically fell into three categories - identifying personality traits of creative versus less creative individuals, identifying cognitive abilities that creative individuals possess, and describing developmental histories of creative individuals (Tardif & Sternberg, 1988). Personality qualities identified as being favorable to creativity in the workplace included: intrinsic motivation, ability and experience, riskorientation, social skill, persistence, curiosity, energy, intellectual honesty, and being naive and unbiased (Amabile & S. Gryskiewicz, 1987). A more recent line of investigation in the field of creativity research is to examine the social environment that can affect the realization of creativity. Human beings do not create in a vacuum. A relationship exists between human beings and the environment in which they create. Research on the creative environment has attempted to characterize the various dimensions of the environment that impact creativity. Focus has been placed in many different contexts, including home and educational environments (Amabile, 1989; Dacey & Packer, 1992), and organizational contexts (Amabile & S. Gryskiewicz, 1987; Amabile & N. Gryskiewicz 1989; Ekvall et al., 1983). One important outgrowth of the examination of social and environmental influences on creativity has been an increasing interest in the ways the work environment might influence the creativity of employees (Amabile, 1989; West & Farr, 1990). Although creativity has been defined in a variety of ways by researchers and practitioners, it is generally referred to as “the production of novel and appropriate ideas by individuals or small groups of individuals working closely together” (Amabile & N. Gryskiewicz, 1989, p. 232). Novelty

62

JILL E. NEMIRO

implies that the idea or product is original, and uppruptiate suggests that the idea or product is useful and solves the problem or task at hand. Organizational

Climate and Culture

The notion that groups or organizations may possess different cultures or climates has been acknowledged since Lewin, Lippitt and White’s (1939) research on the various types of social climates (authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire). Today, the concepts of organizational culture and climate have emerged as key aspects of organizations. Climate is generally considered to be a more limited concept than culture, concerned with mood or atmosphere. Culture refers to the deeper values, norms, beliefs, and assumptions which enable shared meaning and understanding to occur and be maintained (Morgan, 1986). Organizational climate explains “what we do,” while organizational culture explains “why we do what we do” (Bumside, 1990, p. 271). Ekvall et al. (1983) defined organizational climate as a conglomerate of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors which characterize life in the organization. Climate originates in the innumerable interactions between individuals and their organizational setting, and there too it continues to evolve. Every individual organizational member perceives the climate and can describe it on a basis of his or her own perception (p. 2).

This is the definition I have come to accept for organizational climate, focusing on climate as the behaviors, attitudes, and feelings that characterize organizational life and are perceived by each member of the organization. Researchers have found that climates exist at the group level as well as the organizational level (Powell & Butterlield, 1978). Sackmann (1992) found that while some aspects of an organization’s environment were homogeneous throughout the organization, other aspects differed considerably across subgroups within the organization. Gersick (1988) found that the success or failure of a work team depended heavily upon the environment of the group. Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby and Herron (1996) suggested that different teams within an organization may experience different work environments. Researchers of organizational climate distinguish between more holistic, omnibus measures of organizational climate, and those which attempt to study specific climates of interest. Schneider (1975) stated that organizations actually have many climates, and that it is important when discussing or studying organizational climate to identify the particular climate of interest. Similarly, Schneider and Reichers (1983) suggested that “to speak of organizational climate, per se, without attaching a referent is meaningless . . . climate is not an ‘it,’ but a set of ‘its,’ each with a particular referent” (pp. 21-22). Thus, organizations or work settings have numerous referent climates, and these

Assessingthe Climate for Creativity in Virtual Teams

63

climates are for something. Some examples from the organizational climate literature include a climate for service (Schneider, Parkington & Buxton, 1980), for safety (Zohar, 1980), for achievement motivation (Litwin & Stringer, 1968), or for creativity (Taylor, 1972; Witt & Beorkrem, 1989). In this chapter, elements specific to a climate for creativity are discussed. Work Groups and Teams

Work groups have been defined as a collection of individuals (two or more) within the same organization who view themselves as a group; are able to distinguish between members and nonmembers of the group; have tasks for which they are collectively responsible; are dependent on one another for information and help in accomplishing the group’s shared purpose; and operate within a larger organizational context (Guzzo, 1988; Hackman, 1990; Isaksen, 1988; Robbins, 1996). Work groups, for the most part, do not need to or have the opportunity to engage in collective work that requires joint effort. Performance is “merely the summation of each group member’s individual contribution” (Robbins, 1996, p. 348). Although the terms work group and work teams are often used interchangeably, they are not the same thing (Kinlaw, 1991; Robbins, 1996). Work teams share all the basic characteristics of work groups, but they have additional characteristics that work groups do not have. A work team generates a positive synergy through coordinated effort. The efforts of individual team members result in a level of performance that is greater than the sum of the individual inputs (Robbins, 1996). Kinlaw (1991) suggested that any work group could become a work team, and even further, any work team could become a superior work team. Even when individuals in a group are not performing interdependent tasks, but rather more separate and uncoordinated tasks, the members could still become a team. By sharing information, mutual problem solving, giving support, committing to total customer satisfaction, and planning for continuous improvement, groups can become teams. Members of work teams not only cooperatein all aspects of task performance, they share in what are traditionally thought of as management functions and responsibilities, such as joint planning, organizing the team, setting performance goals, assessing the team’s performance, developing their own strategies to manage change, and securing their own resources (Kinlaw, 1991, p. 13).

Superior work teams possess all the characteristics of work teams - and more. Superior work teams achieve levels of consistency (in the pursuit of excellence), intensity (a high level of energy and commitment), and restless dissatisfaction (constantly asking what more can we do). Superior work teams have also been referred to as high perjbmance teams. These teams tend to be

64

JILL

E. NEMIRO

small. Further, they are composed of individual members with varying types of expertise, and the individuals are matched into team roles that tap into their specific expertise. All team members are committed to a common goal or purpose, from which specific goals are established. Members share responsibility, holding one another accountable for accomplishing tasks related to established goals. Leadership, often shared, provides focus and direction. Team members also develop a high level of mutual trust in one another (Robbins, 1996; Traunt, 1996). Virtual Teams In an empirical investigation of virtual teams (Nemiro, 1998, 2OQQ), virtual team members viewed themselves as primarily members of a team, with characteristics similar to teams in general - interdependence, shared values, and common goals. However, these same team members did acknowledge that there were characteristics that distinguished their virtual teams from more traditional, co-located teams. A formal definition of a virtual team that encompassed what the team members themselves shared was offered: A virtual team is first of all a team, characterized by interdependence, shared values, and common goats. Additionally, it is characterized by members that are geographically separated from one another, who communicate mostly through electronic means, and whose boundaries may be stretched by the inclusion of core and peripheral members, members from multiple departments, and smaller teams subsumed by larger teafns (Nemiro, 1998, p. 111).

A review of the existing literature on virtual teams suggests there are factors that distinguish virtual teams from traditional, face-to-face interacting teams. Five distinguishing factors of virtual teams emerge: (a) geographical separation, members are separated from one another physically; (b) alternative methods of communication, members carry out the majority of their communication with one another through information technology, rather than face-to-face; (c) limited information richness, the major methods used to communicate are limited in the information-carrying cap-ability potential; (d) loose boundaries, virtual teams are seen as boundary-less, capable of crossing geographic, temporal, organizational, and functional boundaries; and (e) dynamic membership, membership in virtual teams is dynamic (adaptable, fluid) and temporary. Each characteristic is described further. Geographic separation. What distinguishes or sets apart virtual teams from more traditional teams is the fact that they routinely cross boundaries (Lipnack & Stamps, 1997). The most obvious boundary that virtual teams cross is geographic location. Virtual teams are not co-located. They are composed of members who work together but are geographically dispersed. These

Assessingthe Climate for Creativity in Virtual Teams

65

individuals not only work in different physical locations, but may work together at different times as well. Geber (1995) defined virtual teams as groups of individuals working together that may be separated by many miles or even continents. In Nemiro’s (1998,200O) investigation of virtual teams, over half of the participants mentioned geographic separation as a distinguishing factor of their virtual team. Statements such as “we all live in different cities”; “[we] are not physically located in the same geographic location but are physically at remote locations”; “we don’t work in the same geographic location yet we work together”; and “we are a virtual team because namely I would say, as far as physical locations, we’re in so many different locations, yet it’s as if we were in one building, but in different offices” indicate that geographic separation was an important defining characteristic of the teams. Lipnack and Stamps (1997) suggested that geographic separation may be as little as 50 feet! Co-located teams were those within 50 feet of one another, because “based on proximity, people are not likely to collaborate very often if they are more than 50 feet apart” (p. 6). Virtual teams, then, could be composed of members on different floors of the same building, in different buildings, in multiple cities, or in countries across the globe. Geographic separation is amplified by temporal separation. The challenge comes in learning how to work effectively with members physically separated. Members in Nemiro’s (1998,200O) investigation defined their teams as not just composed of geographically dispersed members, but geographically dispersed members who had the ability to work effectively to produce results even while being separated from one another. Alternative methods of communication. Because of the geographic distances, most communication between virtual team members occurs through information technology, rather than face-to-face interaction. Virtual teams are connected and communicate through various electronic means such as telephones, fax machines, e-mail, audioconferencing, videoconferencing, or groupware. Galbraith (1995) defined a virtual team as electronic networks or teams of individuals - not real teams but linked together electronically to behave as if they were. Lipnack and Stamps (1997) suggested that what makes virtual teams “historically new is the awesome array of interactive technologies at their disposal” (p. 5). Team members in Nemiro’s (1998, 2000) study stressed that the majority of their communication was through electronic means, rather than face-to-face interaction. Statements by team members such as, “Well, the fact that we all live in different cities, and that we do all of our communication through electronic means, whether it be telephones, computers, fax machines, and that’s what makes us virtual, in my mind’ suggest the

JILL E. NEMIRO

importance of alternative forms of communication. One team member suggested her team was “linked by technology instead of geography.” Technology supporting communication between co-workers can occur along the two dimensions of time and place, allowing same time and same place; same time but different place; different time but same place; and different time and different place interactions (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994). For most individuals, communicating at the same time and the same place is the most comfortable type of interaction, as in face-to-face meetings. Technology that enhances these face-to-face meetings includes overhead projectors, shared workstations, flip charts, whiteboards, and videos. Virtual teams may incorporate varying amounts of face-to-face interaction, especially early on to develop a sense of trust amongst team members before they begin working together at a distance. However, this mode of communication would not be the predominant form of communication for virtual groups (Geber, 1995). Team members can also communicate with one another at different times and at dierent places. This mode of interaction is characteristic of virtual teams. Communication, then, is asynchronous, and links are created among dispersed team members through e-mail, voice mail, fax machines, computer conferencing, and shared databases. Team members may also communicate at the sume time but be in difirent places. Virtual classrooms have followed this design. For example, the campuses of the University of Hawaii are linked together through satellite technology to deliver courses to some of the more remote islands (Okuda, personal communication, November 24, 1995). Company meetings and training programs are also being conducted with trainees in different locations linked together at the same time. Information technology that supports this type of virtual interaction includes conference calling, -audioconferencing, videoconferencing, and screen sharing. Although individuals may work in the same pkzce, they may be physically present at digerent times. Through the creative use of technology, the same place can be used at different’times by a wide range of people - some of whom are communicating with each other asynchronously. Shared workstations is a form of technology that supports this type of interaction. At the juncture of same time and same place, and different time and different place interactions is communication that can be engaged in anytime and anyplace. The key to establishing an anytime/anyplace workplace is mobility, consisting of portability and connectivity wherever one is (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994). Technology that supports this type of communication includes lightweight laptop computers, modems, and cellular phones. O’HaraDevereaux and Johansen (1994) suggested that users may need to “prepare to

Assessingthe Climate for Creativity in Virtual Teams

67

go to work in the anytime/anyplace

office with (indeed probably wearing) a wide range of portable, task-specific computer devices capable of performing such on-the-road jobs as calendaring and note-taking, document reading, or voice and text communications” (p. 88).

Limited information richness. With electronic forms of communication, information richness decreases or becomes limited. The concept of information richness was developed to explain information processing behavior in organizations (Daft & Lengel, 1984). Richness was defined as “the potential information-carrying capacity of data” (p. 196). Lengel (1983) argued that the communication media used in organizations determines the richness of information processed, as different types of communication channels vary in information richness. More specifically, communication channels differ in their ability to handle multiple cues simultaneously, facilitate rapid feedback, and be personal (Robbins, 1996). Face-to-face communication is the richest channel because it provides for the maximum amount of information to be transmitted during a communication exchange. Multiple cues (words, posture, facial expression, gestures, and intonations), and immediate feedback (both verbal and nonverbal) can be shared. In addition, face-to-face encounters create the personal touch of being there. Information richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1984) has provided managers with a way to determine the appropriate communication medium to use, depending on the richness (or leanest) of a particular channel, and the type of message (clear and routine, or ambiguous and nonroutine) to be sent. For the virtual teams in Nemiro’s (1998, 2000) study, the channels of communication most frequently used were limited in information richness. For most of t@eteams, face-to-face interaction was not frequent, and in some cases, non-existent, as some members had never met one another face-to-face. In defining the characteristics of their virtual teams, participants frequently described misunderstandings and miscommunications that arose when communicating through more limited channels. Further, e-mail (the most common method of communication used by 7 out of the 9 teams) was described by several team members as the flattest, least human communication channel used. Loose boundaries. Physical or geographic boundaries are not the only boundaries that are crossed in virtual team composition. Traditional functional and organizational borders are crossed, as members often come from different departments or functions within an organization. Wilson, George and Wellins (1994) differentiated between the reporting arrangement of a self-directed work team, where all team members report to the same person; and a virtual team,

JILL E. NEMIRO

where team members are on loan from other departments or organizations. Byrne (1993) classified virtual corporations as having no borders, with partnerships formed between suppliers, customers, and competitors. Nemiro (1998, 2000) found that virtual teams had boundaries that were stretched by teams composed of core and peripheral members, smaller virtual teams being a part of larger virtual teams, and teams with members from differing departments or functions. Individuals across these boundaries function as a “pool of experts,” individuals with talents to meet the needs of a certain customer’s demands (Morris, personal communication, September 9, 1995). Virtual teams, then, are formed of members who offer their core competency or area of expertise to the team endeavor. Effective teams are’ built from personnel that might not otherwise be available to work together. These types of teams allow organizations to hire and retain the best people for the task at hand, regardless of location (Townsend, DeMarie & Hendrickson, 1996). Boundaries are further blurred by access to help outside of the team (Kristof et al., 1995; Townsend et al., 1996). George (1996) clearly distinguished between a team and a virtual team, suggesting that a team becomes virtual when any of three components are added: (a) different geography or locations; (b) different organizations or parts of the organization; or (c) different duration or lengths of time they work together as a team. The greater the extent of each characteristic, the more virtual the team becomes. The last component implies that virtual teams are temporary structures, discussed in the next section. Dynamic membership. Membership in virtual teams is dynamic, fluid, and temporary. Dynamic membership means that team composition can adapt quickly in response to changing project needs. Individuals join, exit, and change roles within these teams depending on the project demands at any given time (Kristof et al., 1995; Townsend et al., 1996). ‘A virtual team is seen as a pool of experts that temporarily bands together to tackle some customer or organizational need (Grenier 8z Metes, 1995; Kristof et al., 1995; Wilson et al., 1994). These teams come together “something like atoms temporarily joining together to form molecules, ‘then breaking up to form a whole new set of bonds” (Davidow & Malone, 1992, p. 199). Background Literature

Carl Rogers (1954) was one of the first to theorize about the necessary conditions for creativity and the importance of creating an environment characterized by psychological safety and freedom, high internal motivation, and the absence of external evaluation to allow creativity to flourish. Since then, the literature investigating the role of the social environment on creativity

Assessingthe Climate for Creativity in Mrtual Teams

69

has further demonstrated the importance of creating the appropriate conditions for enhancing creativity. Studies have demonstrated that creativity can be undermined by: (a) evaluation (Amabile, 1979; Amabile, Goldfarb & Bra&field, 1990; Berglas, Amabile & Handel, 1981); (b) surveillance (Amabile et al., 1990); (c) reward (Amabile, Hennessey & Grossman, 1986; Kruglanski, Friedman & Zeevi, 1971; McGraw & McCullers 1979); (d) competition (Amabile, 1982b); (e) time pressure (Amabile, Dejong & Lepper, 1976); (f) external motivational orientation (Amabile, 1985); and (g) restricted choice (Amabile & Gitomer, 1984; Runco, 1995; Shalley, 1991). More recently, there has been an increasing interest on how the work environment, generally referred to as the social climate of an organization (Amabile & N. Gryskiewicz, 1989), influences the creativity of employees (Amabile, 1989; West & Far-r, 1990). Instruments Designed to Assess the Climate for Creativity

There are only a few researchers that have attempted to quantitatively assess the social climate or work environment for creativity. Siegel and Kaemmerer (1978) designed an instrument to assess the organizational environment for innovation. Based on previous experience with organizational programs attempting to foster creativity of employees, Siegel and Kaemmerer suggested five dimensions to be characteristic of innovative organizations: (a) leadership, which supports the initiation and development of new ideas; (b) ownership, allowing individuals to originate or develop the ideas, processes, and procedures with which they work; (c) norms for diversity, with positive attitudes toward diversity and tolerance of differences; (d) continuous development, with individuals within the organization that maintain a continual questioning approach toward the organization’s goals, looking for alternative approaches or solutions; and (e) consistency between the innovative organization’s processes and desired products. An initial questionnaire, based on the five dimensions, was given to teachers and students in public secondary schools, classified as either innovative or traditional. Results showed significant differences between the respondents of the two types of schools, suggesting that the five dimensions were characteristic of innovative as opposed to traditional schools. Following inspection of a factor analysis of the initial questionnaire, three dimensions emerged as characteristic of the climate of innovative organizations. These dimensions were: (a) support of creativity, the extent to which members of an organization perceive it as supporting its members in the pursuit of new ideas; (b) tolerance of differences, the perception of the organization as being supportive and tolerant of diversity among its members; and (c) personal

JILL E. NElMIFtO

cormnitment, the degree of personal commitment an organizational member feels toward an organization. A revised instrument based on the three above factors was then administered to both innovative and traditional schools. Results indicated that members of innovative, alternative schools perceived their schools as more supportive of creativity and more tolerant of diversity than did members of traditional schools. No significant main effect was found for personal commitment. Siegel and Kaemmerer’s (1978) study represents one of the first attempts at creating an instrument to measure perceived innovativeness in organizations. However, because the instrument was validated on school teachers and students, its usefulness in organizational settings is questionable. An Iilstrument that was designed to assess the work environment for creativity in organizational settings was developed in Sweden by Ekvall and his colleagues (Ekvall, 1983; Ekvall & Arvonen, 1984; Ekvall, Arvonen, & Waldenstrom-Lindblad, 1983). Based on an earlier literature review, Ekvall et al. (1983) hypothesized four dimensions of a creative climate: (a) mutual trust and confidence; (b) challenge and motivation; (c) freedom to seek information and show initiative; and (d) pluralism in views, knowledge, and experience, and exchange of opinions and ideas. A questionnaire, containing 50 items referring to each of the above four domains, was administered in two separate studies - one involving 192 researchers, engineers, and marketing personnel from the research and development and marketing departments of several companies; and the other involving 234 employees from nine departments in a large engineering company, most of whom were researchers or engineers. Data from these two studies were submitted to four separate factor analyses, and seven different scales were extracted from the results, including: (a) support for ideas; (b) challenge; (c) trust; (d) freedom in the organization; (e) freedom in the job; (f) dynamism (an atmosphere of excitement, speed, and flair); and (g) tension (a mix of views and ideas; debate, conflicts and differences of opinion). An additional global index was used as an overall measure of the organization’s creative climate. Evidence for the validity ‘of the measure was provided by a comparative study of three small industrial companies, each with approximately 100 employees (Ekvall et al., 1983). The first company, although considered to be commercially successful, was classified as positional (Nystrom, 1979) rather than innovative. The company focused on one product line and did not engage in efforts to develop new products or alter existing products. The second company had economic problems and did not engage in efforts to develop new products. The third company was considered to be both innovative and successful. Questionnaires were given to participants in all three companies to

Assessing the Climate for Creativity

in Virtual Teams

71

assess the degree of the creative climate. For both successful companies, climates were assessed to be more creative than the unsuccessful company at least on the global measure. However, climates of both successful companies differed with respect to several of the specific climate dimensions. In the innovative company, climate was perceived as more dynamic, characterized with greater tension, and allowing for more freedom on the job as compared to the climate of the positional company. One weakness of Ekvall’s instrument was that it focused entirely on factors which foster creativity and ignored a whole other set of environmental factors that potentially affect creativity - those factors which undermine creativity. To rectify this weakness, Amabile and her colleagues (Amabile & S. Gryskiewicz, 1987; Amabile & N. Gryskiewicz, 1989) developed a measure to assess an organization’s creative climate, which incorporated both positive and negative features of the work environment that impact creativity. Amabile and S. Gryskiewicz (1987) interviewed nearly 120 scientists, asking them to share stories of high and low creativity within their organizations. Based on the results of this investigation, Amabile and N. Gryskiewicz (1989) constructed the Work Environment Inventory (WEI), which consisted of 135 items, with: (a) eight scales describing the stimulants to creativity - freedom, challenge, resources, supervisor, co-workers, recognition, unity and cooperation, and creativity supports; (b) four scales referring to the obstacles to creativity - time pressure, evaluation, status quo, and political problems; and (c) two overall assessment scales on creativity and productivity of work in the organization. The WE1 has now been revised, and is called KEYS: Assessing the Climate for Creativity (Amabile, 1995; Amabile et al., 1996). The KEYS instrument has 78 items, with eight scales emanating from five conceptual categories of the work environment: (a) encouragement of creativity; (b) autonomy/freedom; (c) resources; (d) pressures; and (e) organizational impediments to creativity. To empirically test the dimensions of the creative climate included in Amabile’s (1995) KEYS instrument, Amabile et al. (1996) examined the organizational climates of projects that were classified as low in creativity and high in creativity. The study was conducted to test the ability of KEYS to discriminate between work environments that lead to high creativity and those that lead to low creativity. It was hypothesized that the stimulant scales from KEYS would be rated higher, and the obstacle scales lower, for work environments surrounding projects with highly creative outcomes, as compared to the environments of projects with less creative outcomes. The highlycreative and less-creative nominated projects were rated not only by members of the project teams but also by experts external to the project teams. Further, the study was designed to decipher whether certain dimensions of the work

JILL E. NEZMRO

environment might more strongly and consistently distinguish between high and low creativity projects than other dimensions. The study was conducted in an electronic products company, and had three distinct phases. In the first phase of the study, technical and non-technical middle-level managers were asked to nominate a highest creativity project and a lowest creativity project within the last three years with which they were familiar. They briefly described each project and then completed the KEYS measure for each. In a second phase of the study, independent experts, individuals within the company who were familiar with a large number of projects, were asked to assess the creativity of each of the nominated projects with respect to creativity and quality. The intent of the third, and final phase of the study was to validate the environment assessments and creativity differences that resulted from the data collected in Phase 1, with a different sample of individuals who were unaware of the study’s purpose. A sub-sample of projects was selected for use in Phase 3. Then, all project team members of this sub-sample of projects were asked to complete the KEYS measure to describe the work environment of their particular project. Each participant in Phase 3 assessed the environment for only one project. For Phase 1, as predicted, there was a significant difference between the climates of the high and low creativity projects. High and low creaFty projects were statistically different on all of the work environment scales, all in the expected directions. Six aspects of the work environment discriminated most strongly between high and low creativity projects: challenging work, organizational encouragement, freedom, organizational impediments, and supervisory encouragement. Sufficient resources and workload pressures showed less distinction between the high and low creativity projects. In Phase 2, the experts validated the original creativity nominations. Projects that had been nominated in the first phase of the study as high creativity projects were also significantly higher in expert-rated creativity than those nominated as low creativity pjrojects. In Phase 3, the environments of high and low creativity projects differed in the same directions as those found in Phase 1. The high creativity projects had environments that were higher on the creativity stimulant scales of work group supports, challenging work, organizational encouragement, and supervisory encouragement. The freedom scale was only marginally higher for high creativity projects. On the other hand, as expected, low creativity projects were rated higher on the creativity obstacle scale of organizational impediments. No differences were found for workload pressure and sufficient resources. Thus, the results from Phase 3 nearly mirrored those found in Phase 1. However,

Assessingthe Climate for Creativity in virtual Teams

73

results in Phase 3 were somewhat less powerful than those found in Phase 1, possibly due to memory biases. Overall, this study demonstrated that high creativity projects had work environments (as measured by the KEYS survey) that vastly differed from low creativity projects. High creativity projects had work environments characterized by challenge in the work, organizational encouragement toward creativity and innovation, freedom and autonomy in the work, work groups that communicated ideas effectively, and an absence of organizational impediments. The most important factor found in distinguishing high from low creativity projects was a sense of challenge in the work. Instruments Designed SpeciJcally for Assessing Virtual Teams To date, there are no instruments (other than the one developed by the author) that specifically assess the climate for creativity for virtual teams. In fact, there are few instruments designed to measure other areas of virtual team development and effectiveness as well. Most of these instruments are descriptive in nature, or designed specifically for certain applied projects, and their psychometric properties have not been documented in scholarly literature. One example is described below. After investigating over 200 organizations that were either considering the use of virtual teams, or currently deploying them, Buerkle (1996) developed the Virtual Team Performance Indicator (VTPI). The VTPI was the result of a search for a best practices benchmark of virtual team development. A set of factors emerged from the investigation which indicated that a virtual team goes through the following four growth stages: (a) Level I: Constitutional - The virtual team takes form, sets ground rules, and establishes social expectations; (b) Level 2: Dispersal - Team members begin to “test the waters” of the foundation established in Level 1. Individual and group working patterns begin to emerge in the field; (c) Level 3: Realization - Issues about team progress, conflict, and resources are formally reported and assessed; and (d) Level 4: Rediscovery - Action plans which address Level 3 issues are carried out. The intent of the VTPI is to track the development of a virtual team as it progresses through each of the four proposed growth stages. Conceptual Model The Virtual Team Creative Climate (VTCC) instrument developed by the author is conceptually grounded in previous empirical work on virtual teams.

JILL E. NEMlRO

An exploratory, qualitative research project investigated the work environment necessary for virtual teams to be creative (Nemiro, 1998,200O). Nine different virtual teams, with a total of 36 virtual team members participated in the study. Three teams were organizational consulting firms, two teams were educational consortiums, three teams were on-line service provider teams, and one team was a product design engineering team. One semi-structured, telephone interview was conducted with each participant. Team members also completed a background survey. Through grounded theorizing, eleven environmental features that influenced virtual team members’ creativity emerged: acceptance of ideas and constructive tension; challenge; collaboration; dedication/ commitment; freedom; goal clarity; information sharing; management encouragement; personal bond; sufficient resources and time; and trust. Because of the relatively large number of dimensions that emerged as important to the work environment for virtual team creativity, a model was developed to summarize, categorize, and prioritize these dimensions. Ereviously, Amabile and S. Gryskiewicz (1987) constructed a model for the environment of creativity for research and development scientists. Their model contained three components necessary for the creativity of these scientists raw materials, techniques, and motivation. This model provided an initial conceptual focus for summarizing the dimensions found conducive to creativity in virtual teams. I then proposed that there are three essential components necessary for virtual team creativity. These components are: (a) connection, the elements that need to be in place for a team to develop and maintain identity and a sense of community; (b) raw materials, the basics on which virtual team members can draw in producing creative work; and (c) management and teum member skills conducive to creativity. Each of the previously discussed eleven creative climate dimensions was placed within these three categories. Figure 1 depicts this conceptual model that underlies the VTCC instrument. Connection involves both task (dedication/commitment; goal clarity) and interpersonal (information sharing; personal bond; trust) connections. Once a connection between team members is established, team members need to be supplied with sufficient raw materials, both in terms of information, human, and technological resources, and time, to accomplish the creative work. Finally, as the creative work is underway, the specific types of management and team member skills conducive to creativity should be practiced. Creativity appears to be highest at the intersection of these three components -the area in which the connection is strong, the raw materials supplied are sufficient, and the appropriate management and team member skills conducive to creativity have been developed and are being practiced.

7.5

Assessing the Climate for Creativity in virtual Teams

Connection

Task: l Dedication/Commitment * Goal Clarity

* Acceptance of Ideas and Constructive Tension

Interpersonal: Information Sharing Personal Bond + Trust

l

l

Collaboration

l

l

Fig. 1. Conceptual

Sufficient Resources (information, human, and technological) and Sufficient Time

Model Underlying

the VTCC Instrument.

Development of the Scales Methodology

Items on the VTCC instrument were written to be descriptive of the work environment and to focus on each of the dimensions in the previously discussed conceptual model. A preliminary testing of this instrument has been conducted. First, feedback was sought on the instrument from academics who have done research and written scholarly work on virtual organizations and teams, and practitioners and consultants dealing with virtual teams. Second, the instrument was given to 77 management students in a major California university. These students both took the instrument, and gave feedback on its design, format, and wording of questions. The students were instructed when they took the survey to think of a team they had worked on in which most of the communication between team members was through information technology, and to answer the questions with this team in mind. The majority of the students were working professionals. Scale reliability and item analyses were performed on the data provided from the management students. As a result of this feedback, revisions were made to the VTCC instrument. (Ongoing revision and development of the VTCC instrument will continue, and the next phase will be to pilot the instrument with existing virtual teams in varying business contexts.)

76

JILL E. NEMIRO

Instrument Format The VTCC instrument has two major parts. Part 1, the Creative Climate Assessment, asks respondents to answer a series of questions about the work environment of their virtual team. Eleven sections (representing the eleven dimensions in the original conceptual model) make up this part of the instrument. Each section is described in further detail in the following section. Respondents are asked to rate each question on two different scales: (1) how true or not true the statement currently describes their team; and (2) how important they feel the statement is to their team. The response scale used to assess how much each question currently describes the virtual team is: (1) never or almost never true; (2) sometimes true; (3) often true; and (4) always or almost always true. The response scale used to assess how much each question is important to the virtual team is: (1) seldom important; (2) somewhat important; (3) important; and (4) very important. Items on the VTCC instrument are both positively and negatively worded to tap into both sides of each of the eleven dimensions, elements that lead to high creativity and those that lead to low creativity. Part 2 of the VTCC instrument asks specific demographic and background information questions about the individual virtual team member and the virtual team as well. Description of the Scales Each of the eleven scales of the VTCC instrument is described below. Reliability levels for each scale (alpha levels calculated from the pilot of the instrument with the 77 management students) and sample items are also included. Task Connection Scales 1. Dedication/Commitment (2 items; Alpha= 0.83) - a sense of dedication, intense involvement, and commitment to the work; the ability to work hard on difficult tasks and problems, and persevere. Sample items: “Team members are dedicated, intensely involved, and committed to their work”; “Team members are self-driven and committed to the team’s goals.” 2. Goal Clarity (15 items; Alpha=0.82) - clearly defined and developed goals (through constant clarification and feedback); goals shared by all team members. Sample items: “Goals within the team are clearly defined and developed”; “ Team goals are shared by all team members”; “Indecision results from unclear goals.”

Assessingthe Climate for Creativity in virtual Teams

77

Interpersonal Connection Scales 3. Information Sharing (20 items; Alpha=0.83) - regular communication; sharing the results of one’s efforts; providing needed information; timely updating of information. Sample items: “Team members communicate regularly and consistently with one another”; “Norms for communication are clear to all team members”; “There is a problem with self-serving team members withholding information to protect their own interest.” 4. Personal Bond (17 items; Alpha=0.94) - a personal connection among team members; a “family-like” feeling; a sense of connection that goes beyond common goals and commitment to the work, to a bond in which team members are also committed to and care for one another. Sample items: “Team members are close and feel like a family”; “Team members have compassion for one another”; “Team members take time to show personal interest in one another”; “The team functions as a personal support network for each team member.” 5. Trust (18 items; Alpha = 0.79) - a sense of trust that team members will do their designated tasks within the designated time frame; trust in the accurateness of the information provided by other team members; trust that team members will give honest and constructive feedback on ideas, thoughts, and creative efforts shared electronically; trust in one another’s expertise and ability to do the work effectively; and trust that team members will hold ideas shared in confidence if requested. Sample items: “Team members do their designated tasks within the specified time frames”; “Team members can be frank with one another”; “Team members trust each other’s judgment in their particular area(s) of expertise”; and “Trust is essential for the team to be creative.” Raw Materials Scales 6. Suficient Resources and lime (14 items; Alpha= 0.73) - sufficient information, human, and technological resources; sufficient time to creatively think about a project and to experiment and try things in new and different ways. Sample items: “There are sufficient people to complete the team’s work’; “Team members are able to electronically share information with one another, when needed”; “The team has time to experiment and try things in new and different ways”; “Team members are often scrambling to get their work completed on time.” Management and Team Member Skills Scales 7. Acceptance of Ideas and Constructive Tension (13 items; Alpha = 0.74) Ideas and input are encouraged, valued, and accepted by all the members of their team without unnecessary criticism; a high degree of honesty among team

78

JILL E. NEMIRO

members leading individuals to feel comfortable not only in sharing their own ideas, but in giving open and honest feedback to one another as well; constructive tension emanating from a mix of differing views and opinions. Sample items: “Team members feel their ideas or input are valued”; “Constructive tension is valued and ways to actively create it are sought”; “Ideas are often solicited, and then dismissed by management.” 8. Challenge (12 items; Alpha = 0.74) - a sense of challenge arising from the intriguing and enjoyable nature of a problem or task presented to the group, the urgent needs of a particular situation, or the desire to push for something new and move away from the status quo. Sample items: “For the most part, the work of the team is stimulating and engaging “*, “Team members have the desire to push themselves as a team.” 9. Collaboration (9 items; Alpha=0.87) - the ability to pull together and work closely and comfortably together to complete an interdependent task, pursue a mutual interest, or pursue a jointly held intriguing idea. Sample items: “There is a high level of cooperation among team members”; ‘The work of the team fulfills the mutual interests of its members”; “Everyone on the team benefits from the common result.” 10. Freedom (10 items; Alpha=0.71) - freedom to decide how to do the work; freedom to do the work at one’s own pace; freedom from evaluation, surveillance, or having to meet someone else’s constraints. Sample irevs: “I have freedom to determine my own work pace”; “Overcontrolling ’ and inflexible management limits the team’s autonomy.” 11. Munugement Encouragement (9 items; Alpha = 0.57) - management that is encouraging, enthusiastic, and supportive of new ideas and new ways of doing things. Sample items: “The team leader creates the opportunity for creativity “., “Management is encouraging and supportive of new ideas and new ways of doing things.” Contributions and Future Directions This chapter described the preliminary development of an instrument, the Virtual Team Creative Climate (VTCC) instrument, designed to assess the work environment for creativity for virtual teams. The VTCC instrument makes a contribution beyond the work of previous creativity researchers, by specifically assessing the work environment for creativity for virtual teams. To date, no other instrument has been developed to directly assess the climate for creativity in virtual teams. Further, the instrument includes questions that assesselements which enhance creativity and those which undermine creativity in virtual teams. Most previous research on the work environment for creativity has been

Assessingthe Climate for Creativity in virtual Teams

79

limited, looking at only those factors which enhance creativity. Aside from the seminal work by Amabile (Amabile, 1983; Amabile & S. Gryskiewicz, 1987; Amabile & N. Gryskiewicz, 1989; Amabile et al., 1996), there is little research that has investigated the factors which undermine creativity. Another added benefit of the VTCC instrument is the inclusion and realization that not all dimensions are of equal importance to every team. The VTCC instrument allows virtual team members to both assess how they currently stand with respect to each of the eleven dimensions, and to assess how important each of those dimensions is to their team. This yields an individualized assessment of the climate for creativity for each virtual team, outlining where the team’s more pronounced gaps (between current and importance) lie. Figure 2 illustrates how individualized feedback may be graphically given to a virtual team. (This is a mock-up illustration, and does nor illustrate real data from any existing team.)

Feedback is given on the three major components of the original conceptual model on which the instrument is based - connection, raw materials, and management/team member skills - and on each of the corresponding dimensions. The inside line in Fig. 2 illustrates the team’s current mean rating on each of the eleven different dimensions, and the outside line indicates the mean rating for how important each of the eleven different dimensions is to the team. The shaded area indicates the area of difference, or gap between where the team is currently on a particular dimension and how important that dimension is to the team. The wider the gap, the more there is need for improvement or possible intervention. This instrument, then, can be a valuable diagnostic tool for assessing the environment of creativity in a virtual team, and for suggqsting areas for improvement. The major priority for future research will be further development, testing, and refinement of the VTCC instrument. Currently, the author is beginning to test the instrument with existing virtual teams in different business contexts. Another possible future direction would be to determine the relative importance and differential impact that each of the dimensions may have on creative outcomes. Even though assessment can be individualized for each team, there may be overall causal relationships between specific dimensions. For example, is trust within a virtual team more important for creativity than freedom? Does a personal bond influence the degree of trust within a team? Does the amount of trust within the team influence the level of information sharing? The intent of such an investigation would be to develop a causal model linking all the variables or dimensions found important in an environment for creativity within virtual teams.

\A

and Time

-

,

*

I

A---* - \I

,

* Acceptance Constructive

Fig. 2. Sample of Feedback from the VTCC Instrument.

Outside Line = Importance 1 inside Line = Current Shaded Area = Gap

Personal Bond *

information

Dedication/ Commitment of

Ideas and

* Collaboration

Tension

Assessing

the Climate

for

Creativity

in Virtual

Teams

81

III a working arrangement that some have referred to as “working without context” (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994, p. 150), context is not nonexistent. Social conditions do exist in virtual teams and are important for the realization of creativity. The dimensions that make up an environment for creativity in virtual teams may, in fact, be strikingly similar to those needed by traditional, face-to-face teams. Previous creativity researchers dealing with traditional organizational and group structures, and individuals (Amabile, 1983, 1996; Amabile & S. Gryskiewicz, 1987; Ekvall, 1983; West, 1990) have shown that for creativity to be realized there must be trust; support and encouragement for creativity; freedom; challenge; goal clarity; motivation, commitment or dedication; and sufficient resources and time. Future research is needed to more clearly delineate the differences in work environments for creativity for virtual teams versus those work environments needed for creativity in more traditional, face-to-face teams. These work environments, however, may be more similar than we might imagine.

REFERENCES Amabile,

T. M. (1979). Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,221-233. Amabile, T. M. (1982a). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013. Amabile, T. M. (1982b). Children’s artistic creativity: Detrimental effects of competition in a field setting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 573-578. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY Springer-Verlag. Amabile, T. M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,393-399. Amabile,,T. M. (1989). How work environments affect creativity. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Cambridge, MA. Amabile, T. M. (1995). KEYS: Assessing the climate for creativity. Instrument published by the Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Amabile, T. M., & Gitomer, J. (1984). Children’s artistic creativity: Effects of choice in task materials. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 209215. Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The creative environment scales: Work Environment Inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2,231-253. Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, S. S. (1987). Creativity in the R&D laboratory. Technical Report No. 30. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Amabile, T. M., Dejong, W., BE Lepper, M. R. (1976). Effects of externally imposed deadlines on subsequent intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 92-98. Amabile, T. M., Goldfarb, l?, & Brackfield, S. C. (1990). Social influences on creativity: Evaluation, coaction, and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal, 3.6-2 1. Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B., & Grossman, B. S. (1986). Social influences on creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 14-23.

82

JILL E. NEMIRO

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management .loumaZ, 39(5), 1154-l 184. Berglas, S., Amabile, T. M., & Handel, M. (1981). Effects of evaluation on children’s artistic creativity. Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA. Buerkle, R. (1996). The virtual team performance indicator. Instrument published by the Flagship Consulting: Tipp City, OH. Bumside, R. M. (1990). Improving corporate climates for creativity. In: M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds), Innovation and Creativity at Work (pp. 265-284). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Byrne, J. (1993). The virtual corporation. Business Week, 98-103. Dacey, J., 8c Packer, A. (1992). The nurturing parent: How to raise creative, loving, responsible children. New York, NY Simon & Schuster. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. In: B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 191-233). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Davidow, W., & Malone, M. (1992). The virtual corporation. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Ekvall, G. (1983). Climate, structure, and innovativeness of organizations (Report 1). Stockholm: Swedish Council for Management and Organizational Behavior. Ekvall, G., Arvonen, J., & Waldenstrom-Lindblad, I. (1983). Creative organizational climate: Construction and validation of a measuring instrument (Report 2). Stockholm: Swedish Council for Management and Organizational Behavior. Ekvall, G., 8z Arvonen, J. (1984). Leadership styles and organizational climate for creativity: Some findings in one company (Report 1). Stockholm: Swedish Council for Management and Organizational Behavior. Galbraith, J. (1995). Designing organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Geber, B. (1995). Virtual teams. Training, 32, 3w. George, J. (1996, November). Vial best practice: How to successfully introduce virtual teamworking. Teams, 38-45. Gersick, C. (1988). ‘Dme and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 41,9-41. Grenier, R., & Metes, G. (1995). Going virtual: Moving your organization into the 2Ist century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Guzzo, R. A. (1988). Improving work-group effectiveness. In: R. S. Schuler, S. A., Youngblood & V L. Huber (Eds), Readings in Personnel Management (pp. 350-356). St. Paul, MN: West. Hackman, J. (1990). Groups that work and those that don’t: Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Isaksen, S. (1988). Innovative problem solving in groups: New methods and research opportunities. In: Y. Ijiri & R. L. Kuhn (Eds), New Directions in Creative and Innovative Management (pp. 145-167). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Kinlaw, D. (1991). Developing superior work teams. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Kristof, A., Brown, K., Sims, H., & Smith, K. (1995). The virtual team: A case study and inductive model. In: M. Beyerlein, D. Johnson & S. Beyerlein (Eds), Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams: Knowledge Teams the Creative Edge (Vol. 2, pp. 229-253). Greenwich, (JT: JAI Press. Kruglanski, A. W., Friedman, I., & Zeevi, G. (1971). The effects of extrinsic incentive on some qualitative aspects of task perfornmnce. Journal of Personality, 39.606-617.

Assessing Lengel,

the Climate

for

Creativity

in Virtual

Teams

83

R. H. (1983). Managerial information processing and communication-media source selection behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, IO, 271-299. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching acmss space, time and organizations with technology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Division of Research. McGraw, K., & McCullers, J. (1979). Evidence of a detrimental effect of extrinsic incentives on breaking a mental set. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 285-294. Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Nemiro, J. (1997). Interpretive artists: A qualitative exploration of the creative process of actors. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 229-239. Nemiro, J. (1998). Creativity in Virtual Teams. Doctoral dissertation project. Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA. Nemiro, J. (2000). The climate for creativity. In: M. Beyerlein (Ed.), Team Development (Vol. 7, pp. 79-l 14). Elsevier Science Inc. Nystrom, H. (1979). Creativity and innovation. New York, NY John Wiley & Sons. O’Hara-Devereaux, M., & Johansen, R. (1994). Global work: Bridging distance, culture, and time. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Powell G., & Butterfield, D. (1978). The case for subsystem climates in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 3, 151-157. Rogers, C. (1954). Towards a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, II, 249-260. Robbins, S. (1996). Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies, applications (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Runco, M. A. (1995). The creativity and job satisfaction of artists in organizations. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13, 39-45. Sackman, S. (1992). Culture and subcultures: An analysis of organizational knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 140-161. Schneidet B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28,447479. Schneider, B., 62 Reichers, A. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36, 19-39. Schneider, B., Parkington, J., & Buxton, V. (1980). Employee and customer perception of service in banks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 252-267. Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 179-185. Siegel, S., & Kaemmerer, W. (1978). Measuring the perceived support for innovation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 553-562. Tardif, T., & Stemberg, R. J. (1988). What do we know about creativity? In: R. J. Stemberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity (pp. 429-440). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, C. W. (1972). Climate for creativity. New York, NY Pergamon Press. Townsend, A., DeMarie, S., & Hendrickson, A. (1996). Are you ready for virtual teams? HR Magazine, 123-126. Traunt, T. (1996). High performance teams: A new approach to superiorperformance. Merrimack, NH: Entelechy Enterprises.

84

JILL E. NJZMIRO

West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In: M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds), Innovarion and Creativiiy at Work (pp. 309-322). New York, NY John Wiley & SOIlS.

West, M. A., & Fan; J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. In: M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Rds), Irmovafion and Creativity UI Work (pp. 3-13). New York, NY John Wiley & Sons. Wilson, J., George, J., & Wellins, R. (1994). Leadership trapeze: Strategiesfor leadership in teambased organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Witt, L. A., & Beorkrem, M. N. (1989). Climate for creativity productivity as a predictor of research usefulness and organizational effectiveness in an R&D organization. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 3040. Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65,96-102.

CONSTITUTING RELATIONSHIPS IN COMMUNICATION: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING PEER RELATIONSHIPS IN GEOGRAPHICALLY DISPERSED TEAMS Rama Kaye Hart ABSTRACT This chapter advances a newly emerging theoretical perspective which views personal relationships as comprised of the small, everyday acts of inter&ction (Duck, 1998). Not only is this perspective generated in the communications discipline appropriate for examining how relationships are understood in all types of teams, it is particularly suited for understanding close working and personal relationships which occur among peers in geographically dispersed teams. Perspectives on relationships from the disciplines of interpersonal communication and relationships, information systems, and organizational behavior are reviewed and integrated to propose a framework for examining peer relationships in geographically dispersed teams.

Virtual Teams, Volume 8, pages 85-106. 8 2001 Published by Ekevier Science Ltd. ISBN: O-7623-0843-5 85

86

RAMA

KAYE HART

INTRODUCTION The focus of this chapter is the geographically dispersed team consisting of professional, managerial and technical workers. “Team” is defined as a group of individuals responsible for a shared performance objective through interdependent action. This action may involve creating a work product, building knowledge or providing a support function. The structure of work organizations is being fundamentally altered by advancements in technology (Burris, 1998; Leicht & Fennel, 1997). Especially among professional, highly skilled employees, work is becoming an increasingly geographically separated phenomenon. This experience has been significantly impacted through advancements in communications media, which allow written and oral messaging to substitute for face-to-face, personal contact. Boggs (1998) reports that there are currently 18.4 million “mobile” workers in the United States. Mobile workers, typically in managerial and professional fields, are defined as spending three or more days per month outside their traditional office environments. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (1998) reports that telecommuting from home has nearly doubled in frequency between 1991 and 1998 (1.9 million participants versus 3.6 million). The traditional notion that work group communication takes place in a static environment, in which interpersonal interaction occurs repeatedly with a stable group is being augmented by the experience of the “virtual” work force, which conducts its work across physical and temporal space, separated by contextual differences in culture, group norms and work habits. In fact, 62% of organizations in the U.S. with more than 100 employees use some form of alternative workplace strategy. The creation of team environments to accomplish these strategies is the most commonly used approach. (Hensel, 1998).

IMPORTANCE OF WORK RELATIONSHIPS The field of organizational behavior informs us that the impact of these trends on work group communication and relationships are significant, because personal relationship formation is one of the most important processes in organizations (Zom, 1995). Zom highlights geographical dispersion of employees as a factor contributing to the difficulty in forming personal

Constituting

Relationships

in Communication

87

relationships at work. The context and form of relationship processes will vary considerably, he suggests, as bureaucratic organizations disperse and migrate to team environments. An increasing attention to the importance of peer relationships has taken place in the past decade as research studies have begun to look at particular dimensions of friendship in the work place (mainly related to communication, interaction and support) and their impact on the outcome variables of job effectiveness and satisfaction. Jehn and Shah (1997) most recently related interaction between friends (opposed to between acquaintances) to improvements in work related communication, as long as team members share an overarching commitment to their goals. Winstead, Darlega and Montgomery (1995), in a field study, found a positive relationship between the quality of work output and quality of friendships. A study by Ely (1994) focusing on relationships among women in law firms uncovered a connection between the experience of friendship in the work place and outcomes of perceived productivity and job satisfaction. The roles of peers are more significant in “computerized’ organizations, because they may communicate on a more informal level and are faced with fewer constraints of hierarchy (Burris, 1998). Illustrating this point through a study of negotiation practices over e-mail communication, Moore, Curtzberg, Thompson and Morris (1999) found that the when participants were engaging in activities to build a relationship, for example, mutual self-disclosure or shared membership in a social group, impasses in negotiations were less likely. Additionally, employees working in a dispersed environment may have an even higher likelihood of feeling disconnected and less committed to the organization than those working in a face-to-face setting, because they are not able to build strong connections to their colleagues and to the team and organizational purpose (Whiting & Reardon, 1998). Research conducted in a variety of settings has demonstrated the significance of social support through strong peer relationships in the work place and its impact on productivity, job satisfaction, and personal/professional development (Bach, 1989; Bond, Galinski & Swanberg, 1998; Bullis & Bach, 1991; Eisenberg, Monge & Miller, 1983; Henderson & Argyle, 1985; Kram & Isabella, 1985; Tjosvold, 1983). Such research supports the claim that strong peer relationships contribute to the development of a “support structure,” a basis from which there is a greater willingness to take risks in sharing knowledge, demonstrating creativity and exemplifying leadership (Kahn, 1998).

FCAMA KAYE HART Extant Knowledge of Work Relationships

Social psychology and organizational behavior literature has acknowledged that little attention has been paid to close relationships in specific contexts such as the work place (Adams & Bleiszner, 1994; Dillard, 1987; Duck, 1995; Gabarro, 1990; Hays, 1984; Jehn & Shah, 1997; Zom, 1995). In the field of organizational behavior, specifically, the study of work relationships in organizational behavior is not considered an individual area of knowledge (Kahn, 1998). Kahn points out that relationships at work have been a multidisciplinary field, comprised of role theory, communication theory, and leadership studies. In fact, Rousseau (1997), in a chapter on the emerging trends in organizational research notes that the area of interpersonal relationships has not made it into any of the organizational behavior review chapters in the American Journal of Sociology since 1979. The significant contributions from organizational behavior draw heavily on family relations to explain work relationships. Additionally, they focus almost singularly on relationships in the face-to-face environment, defining work relationships as consisting of situations in which workers are in the same physical location throughout their work time (Fine, 1986). Kahn (1998) also recognizes there is a bias toward work relationships being construed as instrumental for task accomplishment and driven primarily by cognition and rationality as opposed to emotion. He uses attachment theory to explain how functional relationships in the work place provide participants with a “strong, secure base” (Kahn, 1998, p. 41). Similar to the process by which children become more or less capable of differentiation and risk taking when they achieve a sense of support and trust from their family systems, organizational members may take risks in decision making, become more creative, acquire learning and develop their careers when they have a sense of social support. Kahn contributes to emergent perspectives in dispersed team relationships by making a strong case for the’,existence of such relationships and that they are beneficial His perspective, however, is incomplete for fully understanding relationships in dispersed teams, because he has not explained the unique processes by which these attachments are generated (or could be generated) in a dispersed environment. He realizes that attachment theory focuses on individual level dynamics and suggests what is needed is a systems level perspective. Still, the systems perspective, a major contribution of organizational theory, presents relationships as embedded in, and to some degree, influenced by a larger cultural context. In the geographically dispersed team, relationships are not enacted within a static organizational culture. For team

Constituting Relationships in Communication

89

members who meet less than once per month or even once per quarter, the cultural context is comprehended through a limited set of interactions, often devoid of the environmental stimuli such as mission statements posted on corridor walls or nuances such as pastel colored, modernistic office interior designs. Such cues, while they are not represented through human interaction, are interacted with as significant elements of the organizational environment. What is known about the geographically dispersed team context? Most research on relationships in geographically dispersed teams has centered on the differing effects of computer-mediated communication and face-to-face interaction on the work relationship. An exception is Saphiere’s (1996) study conducted to compare productive and unproductive global (and dispersed) teams. The subjects of her study were 56 members of twelve teams whose written correspondence (reports, fax, email) were content analyzed and with whom she conducted surveys and observations of team meetings. Saphiere concluded that the development of friendly, personal acquaintances was the number one contributor to productivity in globally dispersed teams. The subjects in Saphiere’s study cited the formation and maintenance of personal relationships and trust as being critical to their success. In fact, obtaining trust in dispersed settings has received attention in organizational communications literature (Jarvenpaa, Knoll & Leidner, 1998). Cramton (1999) provides a thorough analysis of the problems related to shared conceptual understanding of information in geographically dispersed teams. She includes a variety of media in her analysis but limits the research to university group settings. Fritz, Narasimhan and Rhee (1996) link the importance of social relationships to informal communications systems. The authors%ound that telecommuters (working at a distance from their main office location) perceived ad-hoc communication to be important in accomplishing work, transmitting culture and knowledge and maintaining loyalty. A study conducted by Chidambaram (1996) based on the adaptive strncturation theories of DeSanctis and Poole (1994) argues that groups adapt technology to meet their social process needs. Additionally, Chidambaram’s study found that teams supported by computer-mediated communication needed more time to develop close relationships but were able to exchange social information over an extended period of time. Chidambaram concluded that it was possible to develop close relationships over distance, given adequate time for the adaptation of communication technology and the exchange of social information. While studying the socialization skills of dispersed student teams, Knoll and Jarvenpaa (1995) found that students working to produce a common document

90

RAMA

KAYE HART

sent a slightly higher proportion of “socialization content” across computermediated channels than those not engaged in a shared output. The teams reported that the exchange of personal information created a team identity and personal familiarity. The content of messages in geographically dispersed teams has been related to goals such as identity, interaction and the development of relational resources (Wilson & Zigurs, 1998). Walther (1995, 1996) has established that dispersed teams communicating via computer-mediated channels do not lack the ability to develop relationships. His work employed the analysis of verbal and textual cues of relational communication: messages and elements of messages individuals use to describe their relationships (Burgoon & Hale, 1987) across computer-mediated interaction. Walther asserts, “it has been suggested that computer-mediated communication produces significantly different relational communication (than face-to-face communication) due to the number and types of cues available to participants” (Walther, 1995, p. 187). Relationships in organizations have been important for most of the past century, however, the framework through which we view these relationships have evolved toward a perspective of the figural individual, her attitudes, skills, behaviors and motivations. This is divergent from the historical perspective of jointly created relational reality generated by such early management scholars as Mary Parker Follett. The sciences of organizational behavior, social psychology, and sociology are focused more on the inquiry of disconnection than connection (Clarkson & Shaw, 1992). Follett presented the role of social relations as a strongly constructive force for the organization (Weinberg, 1996). From the earliest Post-Cartesians, a variety of disciplines have addressed the constitutive nature of interaction for the interpersonal relationship. The following sections will contrast the historical perspectives on relationship theory with emergent research moving us closer to the naturalist framework proposed later in the chapter. Historical, Roots of Relationship Theory

The perspectives and theoretical contributions on relationship and friendship have moved from singularly focusing on attraction and antecedents of attraction to a recognition of the full set of behaviors and developmental processes that demonstrate friendship as a socially enacted and structurally and contextually embedded process of relating (Berscheid, 1994; Hendrick, 1995). The following discussion will review these major theoretical perspectives and identify the constructs and definitions that are most relevant for inclusion in the proposed framework.

91

Constituting Relationships in Communication

Early theorists such as Wright (1969) defined relationship first and foremost as being reliant on “voluntary interdependence,” as well as other conceptual dimensions of the relationship contributing to preservation of self-wellbeing and self-worth. McCall (1970) defines relationships as comprised of a number of dimensions present within each individual including: ascription, attachment, commitment, investment, reward and dependability. He viewed interaction as the pursuit of personal ends within the context of the organization or group. Rather than constituting relationships within interaction, he defines relationship as synonymous with the purpose of the exchange, and therefore constitutes interaction within the relationship. Kelly and Thibault (1978) describe relationship in terms of satisfaction through reward and punishment and mutual interdependence as it supports individual goals. They describe continuity of the relationship as equating to success, and Hinde (1976) recognizes that continuity means each individual is affected by interactions in the past and may affect interactions the future. Hinde defines relationship as it implies first some sort of intermittent interaction between two people, involving interchanges over an extended period of time. The interchanges have some degree of mutuality in the sense that behavior of each other takes some account of the behavior of the other (Hinde, 1976, p. 14).

Hinde’s categorization of the dimensions of relationship includes content, diversity and quality of interactions. By content, he refers to action. Diversity includes the variety of activities and contexts. Quality refers to the intensity, content and presentation of verbal material and the relationship between the behavior of two participants. Altm?tn and Taylor (1973) also make assumptions about progress of the relationship in linear terms and rewards and costs associated with continuing the relationship. As for the dimensions that constitute relationship, they describe these dimensions as they relate to the social penetration process - a relational developmental process. Their dimensions include richness and breadth of interaction, uniqueness of interaction, efficiency of exchange, substitutability of interaction with another having the same meaning, synchronization and pacing, permeability and openness, voluntariness and spontaneity, and the ability to interact (with frequency). In describing workoriented relationships, Altman and Taylor indicate how their model would be used for description: Generally speaking, instrumental or work-oriented and less rapid rate of social penetration than social

relationships probably produce a lower situations since the emphasis is typically

92

RAMA directed toward often prescribed

the job rather than toward maintenance.functions role relationships and modes of behavior @. 161).

and because

KAYE there

HART are

Hays (1984) took the social penetration perspective first presented by Altman and Taylor (1973) further into the realm of a set of skills and behavioral responses, focused the breadth of interaction through shifts in content areas. The dimensions comprising relationship proposed by Hays include breadth of interaction, communication, consideration, companionship and affection. Miller and Jablin (1991) examined relationship in terms of cognitive comparisons and contrasts made by participants at the at the object level, individual level, transactional level, relational level and contextual level. Adams and Bleiszner (1994) provide a comprehensive review of the research on friendship and create a synthesis and integrative framework to combine the sociological and psychological perspectives for understanding this phenomenon. Their concept of “friendship processes” set the stage to focus on the dynamic aspects between dyad members and among network participants. The dimensions outlined by Adams and Bleiszner include displays of affection, social support, resource exchange, cooperation, accommodation, coordination, shared activities and interests, concealment, manipulation, conflict and competition. Other variables that have frequently been used to describe relationship are length and frequency of interaction, and the variety of interaction processes. However, according to Adams and Bleiszner, these do not reveal the nature of interaction in depth. Relationship research which has been more behaviorally based, such as Weiss’s (1998) taxonomy of relationships, distinguishes between attachment and affiliation, using continua including: exclusivity, persistence, grief from termination of the relationship, sustained bonds, and loneliness. Parks and Floyd (1996) acknowledge that closeness and intimacy, fundamental constructs comprising close relationships and friendships have been poorly defined. Their work has sought to develop definitions of close relationships by drawing distinctions between perceptions of closeness and intimacy, based on the expeqences and perceptions of individuals and dyads. From their research on adult friendships, they created a typology to define closeness. The results of their study indicated that self-disclosure, help and support and shared interests and activities were the three most common behaviors associated with closeness. Others included relational expression, comfort and ease of interaction, trust, acceptance, frequency of interaction, global affect, understanding, length of interaction, and the presence of advice giving. This study was primarily focused on friendship, but it is useful to examine meanings for closeness, the authors assert, in a wider array of relationships.

Constituting Relationships in Communication

93

Geographically Dispersed Relationships

Ihe bridge between the dispersed, distributed environment and relationships has begun to be built by social scientists in the area of long distance relationships (Lea & Spears, 1995; Parks & Floyd, 1997). In their text examining “understudied relationships,” editors Wood and Duck (1995) bring attention to the newly emerging types of relationships “socially situated’ in unique contexts such as the computer-mediated environment. Lea and Spears (1995) indicate that studies of geographically dispersed relationships are limited in number and these studies limit their subjects to those who communicate via asynchronous computer-transmitted messages, when, in fact, much geographically dispersed team communication occurs through a variety of media - rarely in close and face-to-face interaction, and frequently through voice communication and electronic messages (Hiltz & Wellman, 1997). Parks and Floyd (1997) argue that no current theory of relationship development requires physical information as a necessary precondition to the development of relationship. They summarize by saying, What is missing is a systematic research effort to map the prevalence of personal relationships in on-line settings, the basic demographics of relational participants, the levels of development achieved and their links to off-line or real-life settings (Parks & Floyd, 1997).

Parks and Roberts’ (1998) study of friendship development in cyberspace contributes valuable information on the process of relationship development across electronic media. Usually, news group members develop close personal relationships. Interdependence, breadth and depth of interaction, interpersonal predictability and understanding, movement to more personalized ways of communicating, commitment, and the convergence of social networks were found to be the key dimensions along which these relationships develop. Through the use of surveys with participants, they were able to determine that technological mediated environments substitute for the space created by offices and work environments in providing opportunities for team members to gather. Having concluded that the possibility for personal relationships on-line exists, they support the argument that these types of relationships must be better understood and the mechanisms contributing to their functioning must be dismantled and examined. Their own study is limited in its demography, focusing on subjects between the ages of 17 to 30 in opposite sex relationships. This focus on user groups and support groups was continued by Galegher, Sproull and Kiesler (1998) in their examination of electronic support groups and how members develop relationships through the establishment of

94

RAMA KAYE HART

legitimacy, authority and group identity. Their research showed that use of intemet-based textual communication was helpful in developing relationships similarly to face-to-face support groups. Garton, Haythomthwaite and Wellman (1997) and Rice and Bamett (1985) studied the effect of computer-mediated communication on social networks. Their findings revealed that friendships (looking at the component of social networks at the dyadic level) do exist, although they differ more in strength and symetry than do face-to-face social network relationships. Katz and Aspden (1997) researched the demographic characteristics of subjects experiencing friendships created on the Internet. They found that use of the Internet appeared to augment existing social connectivity. In other words, people who were already likely to build personal relationships were adding to their social connections through the computer-mediated environment.

Interpersonal Communications Theory: The Constructive Powers of Interaction The work of George Herbert Mead provides the social psychological grounding for the proposed framework. Mead, situated in a time when Darwinian theory of biological evolutionism guided much philosophical inquiry, focused his attention on the self and its ability to develop and change as it interacts with other organisms and the environment. His work provides the thedretical foundations for social interactionism, which was extended by Harold Blumer in 1969 to the concept of symbolic interactionism. These theories have significant relevance to the study of communication in geographically dispersed teams. Mead (1982) asserted that the individual mind can only exist in relation to the other minds with shared meaning and that hum* expression is necessary for clarity and objectivity. This emphasizes the importance of communication for creating meaningful interpretation. Without the ability to communicate in a social relationship with others, or even in a conversation of “self-talk,” there is no clarity in the ability to view the self (the “me” as opposed to the “I”) in the world or to view others “objectively” as being separate from ourselves. He examines the role of the social situation in generating meaning: In the socialsituation,there is a greaterconsciousness of meaning,we are muchmore immediatelyaware of what we are saying and doing to tbe other person than we are doing to the physical

objects

(Mead,

1982, p. 45).

Mead (1982) distinguishes the importance of meaning created through interaction. Blumer (1969) provides useful root images of symbolic interactionism. He asserts that the nature of human society or group life is that fundamentally, groups exist in interaction and must be seen in terms of

Constituting

Relationships

95

in Communication

interactions. In other words, relationship is created from what people do. Blumer equates social interaction and content: Social interaction is not the medium, but in fact is the content. It human conduct instead of being merely a means or a setting for of human conduct . . . human beings have to take into account about to do the activities of others enters as positive factors own conduct (Blumer, 1969, p. 69).

is the process that forms the expression or release what each is doing or is in the formation of their

Through this root metaphor of action as being the nature of social interaction and relationship, the role of communication content is amplified in the creation of shared meaning. This presents an interesting possibility for geographically dispersed team communication, in which interaction is bounded by differences in moments of time and distance. In such a context, perhaps we are interacting with the medium of telephone or computer technology as an intermediary between the other and ourselves. In this case, are we actually acting and reacting alone? Or, perhaps there is a greater consciousness of meaning in geographically dispersed teams, because communication in this context is predominately conducted via technological media, using “higher ordered communication” (i.e. written language). Lower-ordered communication (Mead, 1934) is much more instinctual, such as non-verbal communication enacted without significance or without reflection. Mead goes further to explain that if we are not able to reflect on, view or comprehend our own actions such as our own facial expressions which we cannot see, or our inadvertent use of body language, these gestures, or symbols are less significant. To use verbal language is considered to be “higher ordered” by Mead (1982) because it is more intentionally symbolic. The v&al gesture, then, has an importance which no other gesture has, we cannot see ourselves when our face assumes a certain expression. If we hear ourselves speak, we are more apt to pay attention (p. 65).

These concepts have significant import for geographically dispersed team communication across the variety of available media and its role in relationship development. One might argue that geographically dispersed team communication is largely comprised of “higher ordered” symbols. Because we do not share physical space in geographically dispersed teams as frequently as in faceto-face teams or as teams located in close physical proximity, we are not able to provide the additional, non-symbolic cues, which, albeit are rich in communicative complexity, are lower-ordered, in that they are not always enacted through a process of apprehension and comprehension (Kolb, 1984). What then, becomes the role of the communicative act in geographically dispersed team communication across a variety of media? We are not following

RAMA KAYE HART

%

instinctual impulses in geographically separated communication such as phone conversations or email. We are always, in those cases, thinking through meaning and creating actions in those settings based on our interpretations. We are much more aware of our symbolic gestures, with little opportunity for impulse and without the full complement of physical cues available to us. How, then, do the small communicative acts accumulate across various media to contribute to peer relationships? It is my assertion that the geographically dispersed team experience can be interpreted from the theoretical perspectives of social and symbolic interactionism. These perspectives generate the following assertions: (1) Interaction is an important source of meaning for members of geographically dispersed teams. (2) Geographically dispersed teams, using verbal and written language to communicate, rely on symbolic interaction in the enactment of their relationships. (3) This reliance on symbolic interaction stresses the constructive role communication has in developing strong peer relationships.

INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

THEORY

Communications theory focuses on the actions involved in relating, the exchange that takes place in order for inter-action to occur, and therefore implies a relationship through the action exchanged between individuals. Communication has been defined as: a process in which participants create and share information with one another in order to reach mutual understanding (Rogers & Kin&d, 1981); and as communication between persons, occurring in face-to-face message exchanges in a small number, through maximum sensory channels (Miller, 1976). Gumperz’s (1982) definition works well in understanding geographically dispersed teams, because much of the communication occurs as participants alternate between cognition and interaction, between apprehension and comprehension. He asserts: Communication is a two-step process in which the speaker first takes in stimuli from the outside environment, evaluating and selecting from among them in the light of his(her) own cultural background, personal history and what he(she) knows about his interlocutors. He then decides on the norms that apply to the situation at hand. These norms determine the speaker’s selection from among the communicative options available for encoding his intent (Gumperz, 1982, p. 15).

The definitions stated above are consistent with the symbolic interactionist paradigm described earlier and with Duck’s (1994) emphasis of the role

97

constituting Relationships in Communication

language and interaction have in forming relationships. However, it is important to note that the mere fact of interaction does not make relationship implicit (Duck, 1998); relationships are formed by cognition and meaning making as a result of communication. Extending this clarification to organizational communication, Boyce (1995) refers to the purposeful use of shared storytelling (in face-to-face settings) to confirm the shared experiences and shared meaning of organizational members. Boyce describes how, through shared storytelling, the organizational reality, sense of purpose, group planning, and decision making can be impacted. In the geographically dispersed setting, as in all symbolic interaction, shared meaning generated through communication is based partly on the environment. Shared meaning is created by a combination of the attitudes of the participants combined with their understanding of the broader organizational context (Beamer, 1995). The location of the team, the physical spaces that they share and the objects occupying that space provide grounding for the team members in a meaningful shared history. (Altman & Taylor, 1973). However, geographically dispersed communication is mediated by more technological “places and objects” than communication occurring in a face-to-face setting. Geographically separated communication occurs through speech, reading and writing, and each is a very different type of interaction from the other. There is a significant gap in understanding how enactment of geographically separated relationships occurs through media other than computer-mediated communication (McCreary & Brochet, 1992; Chesebro, 1995). Some limited research has been conducted via other forms of communication. For example, Hopper (1992) conducted conversation analysis of telephone conversations in the work setting. Stephen (1987) found that in geographically separated marital relationships, shared meaning was created through phone conversations and letters, while Abel (1990) conducted field studies of work groups employing audio and video conversation, but concluded that technology was inadequate for establishing relationship - it could only be achieved, in his view, in person. The Importance of the “Communication

Event”

Having established that communication has constitutive power in developing relationships, it logically follows that the element of the communication exchange with the most salience for dispersed team relationships would be the “jointly enacted communication episode.” This was stressed by Goldsmith and Baxter (1996) as the “joint accomplishments of participants as they interact rather than the communication acts of autonomous individuals” (p. 88).

RAMA

KAYE HART

Hymes (1986) defines this episode (using traditional forms of communication media) as the “speech event.” In geographically dispersed teams, this can be referred to as the “communication event,” since oral communication is but one form of interaction for dispersed team members. The speech event is defined as a stretch of utterances (larger than a single utterance) focused on the interaction between communicators, and as specifically what occurs in adaptation and response to the environment and the other speaker (Gumperz, 1982). Gumperz explains that “although speech events are popularly thought of as units of content or activities, their social significance derives from the relationship they establish between certain types of content and certain types of verbal routines” (p. 17). To characterize how speech events constitute personal relationships, Goldsmith and Baxter (1996) conducted four studies using diary research to obtain detailed, unstructured descriptions from college students about their close personal interactions. Data were collected regarding the nature of the relationship, the purposes and outcomes of the interaction, the sequences and organization of events, the tone and mood of the conversation, the channel of communication, norms and background knowledge necessary for understanding the event, and the label or phrase the respondent might use to describe the event. These data were compiled and analyzed to determine the type of talk respondents recognized, commonly used labels for the type of talk and the differentiating point among the types. While this study is limited in its applicability to other settings and relationship types, and is heavily reliant on self-reported information, it proves to be a pivotal shift away from constructing relationships on the basis of individual characteristics, attitudes, behaviors or motivation. It serves as a charter inquiry into the importance of small, everyday acts of communicating in forming relationships. The proposed framework, along with current research I have undertaken, draws on Baxter and Goldsmith’s (1996) conceptualization of relationships. Such comprehensive study of the communication typology enacted by geographically dispersed te&n members with “strong” and “weak” personal and working relationships is consistent with Goldsmith and Baxter’s suggestion that future studies further explore the dynamics of relationships through observation of communication events as they occur. To extend their work into a field setting significantly different from that of the collegiate dyadic friendship, the framework proposed here and the research which is underway goes beyond simply applying their existing taxonomy, and seeks to create a unique taxonomy of communication for geographically dispersed team member relationships. It also will augment the “speech” events occurring in verbal, face-to-face communication to include “communication” events _suchas

Constituting

Relationships

99

in Communication

electronic mail, computer-mediated, synchronous electronic communication and audio and video teleconferencing.

EMERGENT,

INTERDISCIPLINARY

PERSPECTIVES

As this chapter has attempted to establish, there are few existing models for relationship in geographically dispersed teams outside of anecdotal information or traditional team development research based on face-to-face interaction. Relationship theorists have begun to focus more on behavior, skills, and social processes as opposed to antecedents of attraction, the social exchange and penetration processes of relationship. However, other than Steven Duck, none have expressed a perspective more adequately for explaining the condition of geographically separated relationships embedded in diverse cultures and contexts. In Duck’s (1998) historical perspective on relationship theory, he provides a useful metaphor to understand how relationships have been redefined over the past 20 years. In describing the term “relationships,” the noun form is given to the root verb, to “relate,” and therefore, defines the boundaries of existence of a relationship like the walls of a “vessel,” which contains individuals as they move and act. Extending this to typical organizational relationships, it is apparent that the same container metaphor applies: leadership, followership, mentorship, colleague&p. All these concepts, linguistically, imply “bodies” which “carry” the everyday acts of leading, following, mentoring and working together. I assert that in the new environment of organizational life, that is, the temporary workforce, the flexible work arrangement, telecommuting, and geographically dispersed teams, long established notions of relating will not “capturev or “hold” these emerging experiences. The basis for this assertion is the reality of team life in the geographically dispersed environment. Physical spaces are being replaced by virtual spaces where employees are coming together to create shared purposes and identities. Further extending Duck’s assertions, attention must be paid to the everyday, seemingly insignificant acts of relating in the work environment. These actions are the heart of the relationship themselves. System level organizational processes, slowly evolving shifts in relationships, and individual characteristics can not be relied upon to define relationship when the context is so rapidly changing and as diverse as in a geographically dispersed team. Instead of viewing the individual actors as being “in a relationship,” the relationship should be viewed as being “in individuals,” (Duck, 1998). Instead of people being “in team relationships,” team relationships can be viewed as being “in people.” This is an especially critical re-framing when the variety of

RAh4A KAYE HART

100

media used to conduct the everyday acts of team relationships are so diverse and ever-expanding. Relationships between team members must be further analyzed across the variety of media used to carry them out. This framework, therefore, defines geographically dispersed relationships as being: (a) in team members, (b) in the content of their everyday interactions, (c) in the communicative action across a variety of media, (d) enacted through the joint “communication event,” and (e) significantly contributing to strong relationships (or, as we have clarified, “relating”) among peers in the work setting. This argument is strongly connected to the social and symbolic interaction processes described by Mead (1982) and Blumer (1969). Since meaning is created through interaction, groups exist in interaction and can be comprehended primarily in terms of interaction; it is appropriate to discard the assumption that the organizational members exist in teams, as if the team is some abstract structure that exists without action. The proposed framework will bring to the forefront the relating and relationships found in the communication content rather than focusing on what can be considered the “vessels” of relationship, such as group structure and media use. Utilizing Duck’s (1994) perspective for understanding relationships in dispersed teams seems an appropriate response to Rousseau’s (1997) call for a shift in organizational thinking from “organization” to “organizing” so that we may reconnect with the original definitions of organization as process rather than as outcome. She explains that such a shift would return our attention to the seemingly insignificant acts of interaction and organizing, therefore making them figural and constructive again.

SUMMARY This chapter proposes a theoretical framework for understanding relationships in geographically dispersed teams which is based on assertions grounded in the fields of organizational behavior, information systems, interpersonal relationships, and interpersonal communication. Root epistemological assumptions are drawn from the social psychological school of social interactionism. This framework (and the informing literature) is summarized as follows: (1) Geographically dispersed team relationships are imbedded in a dynamic organizational culture. (Organizational Behavior). (2) Strong relationships in geographically dispersed teams are important for many outcomes related to job effectiveness, performance, commitment and satisfaction. (Organizational Behavior).

Constituting

Relationships

in Communication

101

(3) Relationships are achievable in geographically dispersed teams using a variety of media to replace frequent face-to-face content. (Information Systems). (4) The existing frameworks from relationship theory research are outdated and inappropriate for explaining geographically dispersed team relationships. (Interpersonal Relationships). (5) Relationships in geographically dispersed teams can be understood most appropriately through a social construction, symbolic interaction perspective, which emphasizes the constitutive properties of interaction. (Interpersonal Communication). (6) The salient communication unit comprising interaction in geographically separated relationships is the “communication event,” occurring between joint interlocutors. (Interpersonal Communications). (7) Relationships are constituted by the small, everyday acts of relationship. Geographically dispersed team relationships occur in the interaction between members. (Interpersonal Relationships). This framework has significant implications for research and practice in geographically dispersed teams. Currently, research is underway to utilize this framework for examining the nature of interpersonal relationships in teams along several dimensions. First, the framework allows a focus on the “communication event,” which takes into account the nature of the whole interaction, created by the combination of two or more participants, rather than the fragments of their conversation or utterances of one participant. In addition to a focus on units of speech and communication at the individual action level (Poole, 1981), the most commonly used communication typologies of group?nteraction (Bales, 1950; Fisher, 1980; Hirokawa, 1985; Mabry, 1975; Poole & Roth, 1989) explain communication relevant to instrumental actions such as decision making. Topics have been developed regarding communication focused on major developmental processes, such as relational communication (Burgoon, Buller, Hale & DeTurck, 1984; Rogers & Farace, 1975; Walther, 1995). The proposed framework allows a broader stance regarding communication events. All communication events occurring within peer relationships in teams may be categorized, regardless of whether or not they promote the decision making process or whether they consist of major processes or mundane, everyday communication. Finally, the proposed framework allows for additions to the existing knowledge base regarding communication content in work teams across media, which has to date been largely derived from live observation or analysis of transcripts of face-to-face groups (Bales, 1950; Donnellon, 1996; Fisher, 1980;

102

RAMA

KAYE HART

Hirokawa, 1985; Knapp, Miller & Fudge, 1994; Mabry, 1975; Poole, 1989) and telephone conversations (Hopper, 1992). Geographically dispersed communication does not contain the elemental features of face-to-face communication in teams such as close physical proximity, frequency of interaction, and breadth and depth of physical cues through non-verbal communication. Many geographically dispersed teams actually experience face-to-face communication less frequently than other forms of communication such as email or voice mail. Traditional communication typologies were based primarily on homogenous groups studied in experimental or laboratory conditions and university settings. If we applied existing interaction categorization schemes to all the forms of media used in geographically dispersed team communication, we would be overlaying assumptions about communication confent onto very different forms of communication context. As increased geographically dispersed team communication occurs, our human communication ability must be continually developed. This framework provides a basis through which substantive data acquired from the field setting can inform that development. The categorization schemes (developed based on this framework) will inform researchers and practitioners alike in the communicative processes that contribute to the development of interpersonal relationships in this ever-expanding organiza, tional context.

REFERENCES Abel, M. J. (1990). Experiences in an exploratory distributed organization. In: .I. Galegher, R. Kraut & C. Egido (MS), Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work (pp. 489-510). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Adams, R., & Bleiszner, G. (1994). An integrative conceptual framework for friendship research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, II, 163-184. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social Penetration: The development of interpersonal ’ relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bach, B. W. (1989). The effectiof multiplex relationships upon. innovation adoption: A reconsideration of Rogers’ model. Communication Monographs, 56(2), 133-150. Bales, R. E (1950). Interaction Process Analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison Wesley. Baxter, L. A. (1991). Content Analysis. In: B. A. Montgomery & S. W. Duck (Eds), Studying Interpersonal Interaction. New York: The Guilford Press. Baxter, L. A., & Bridge K. (1992). Blended relationships: Friends as work associates. Western Journal

of Communication,

56(3),

200-225.

Beamer, L. (1995). A schemata model for intercultural encounters and case study: The emperor and the envoy. Journal of Business Communication, 32, 141-161. Berscheid, E. (1994). Interpersonal Relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 45,79-129. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

constitufing Boggs,

Relationships

in Communication

103

R. (1998). Mobile Worker Profile, Demographics and Technology Use. Framingham, MA: International Data Corporation. Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E., & Swanberg, J. (1998). The 1997 National Study of the Changing Worybrce (W98-01): Families and Work Institute. Boyce, M. E. (1995). Discussion procedures and decision making performance: A test of a functional perspective. Human Communication Research, 12,203-224. Bullis, C., & Bach, B. W. (1991). An explication and test of communication network content and multiplexity as predictors of organizational identification. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55(2), 18&197. Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Hale, J. L., & DeTurck, M. A. (1984). Relational messages associated with nonverbal behaviors. Human Communication Research, 10(3), 35 l-378. Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54(l), 19-41. Burris, B. (1998). Computerization of the Workforce. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 141-157. Chesebro, J. W. (1995). Communication technologies as cognitive systems. In: J. T. Wood (Ed.), Toward the Twenty-First Century: The Future of Speech Communication (pp. 1546). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc. Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS Quarterly, 20(2),143-165. Clarkson, P., & Shaw, P (1992). Human relationships at work in organizations. Management Education and Development, 23(l), 18. Corson, D. L., & Enz, C. A. (1999). Predicting psychological empowerment among service workers: The effect of support-based relationships. Human Relations, 52(2), 205-224. Cramton, C. D. (1999). The mutual knowledge problems and its consequences in geographically dispersed teams. Unpublished Manuscript. D’Andrade, R. G., &Wish, M. (1985). Speech act theory in quantitative research on interpersonal behavior. Discourse Processes, L?(2), 229-259. DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 52, 121-147. Dillard, J. D. (1987). Close relationships at work: Perceptions of the motives and performance of rela$nal participants. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 17%193. Donnellon, A. (1996). Team Talk - The Power ofLanguage in Team Dynamics. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Duck, S. W. (1994). Meaningful Relationships (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Duck, S. W. (1995). On the examination of meaning and relationships. Paper presented at the Western States Communication Association Annual Convention, Portland, Oregon. Duck, S. W., West, L., & Acitelli, L. K. (1997). Sewing the field: The tapestry of relationships in life and research. In: S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions (2nd ed., pp. l-24). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Duck, S. W. (1998). On the linkages between management, communication, research and personal relationships, but not necessarily in that order. Paper presented at the 1998 Academy of Management Meeting, San Diego, San Diego. Eisenberg, E. M., Monge, P. R., & Miller, K. I. (1983). Involvement in communication networks as a predictor of organizational commitment. Human Communication Research, 10(2), 179-201. Ely, R. J. (1994). The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 203-238.

104

RAMAKAYEHART

Fine, G. A. (1986). Friendships in the workplace. In: V. J. Darlega & B. A. Wmstead (Eds), Friendship and Social Interaction (pp. 185-206). New York: Springer-Verlag. Fisher, B. A. (1980). Small group decision making. New Yorlc: McGraw Hill. Ford, I. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20,541-570. Fritz, M. B. W., Narasimhan, 8, & Rhea, H. S. (1996). Tke impact of remote work on informal organizational communication. 1999: Electronic Source. Gabarro, J. J. (1990). The development of working relationships. In: J. Galegher, R. Kraut & C. Egido (Eds), Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foun&ions of Cooperative Work (pp. 79-l 10). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Galegher, J., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1998). Legitimacy, authority and community in electronic support groups. Written Communication, 15(4), 493-530. Garton, L., Haythomthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1997). Studying online social networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications, 3( 1). l-26. Goldsmith, D. J., & Baxter, L. A. (1996). Constituting relationships in tallc: A taxonomy of speech events in social and personal relationships. Human Communication Research, 23(l), 87-l 14. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, M. J. (1993). Issues in studying the mediation of expectancy effects: A taxonomy of expectancy situations. Interpersonal Expectations: Theory, Research, and Applications (pp. 350-378). New York, NY Cambridge University Press. Hays, R. B. (1984). The development and maintenance of friendship. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships,

I, 75-98.

Henderson, M. A., & Argyle, M. (1985). Social support by four categories of work colleagues: Relationships between activities, stress and satisfaction. Journal of Occuphtional Behaviour,

6(3),

229-239.

Hendrick, S. S. (1995). Close relationships research: Applications to counseling psychology. Counseling

Psychologist,

23(4),

649-665.

Hensel, D. Q. (1998). LaSalle partners and IFMA study shows traditional workplace takes a new direction. Houston, TX: International Facilities Management Association. Hiltz, S. R., & Wellman, B. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom. Communications of the ACM, (September), 44. Hinde, R. A. (1976). On describing relationships. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 17(l), 1-19. I Hirokawa, R. (1985). Discussion procedures and decision making performance: a test of a functional perspective. Hump Communication Research, 9(4), 293-305. Hopper, R. (1992). Telephone Conversations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Hymes, D. (1986). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In: D. Hymes & J. H. Gumperz (Eds), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication (pp. 35-71). New York Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 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, (Spring), 29. Jehn, K., & Shah, P. I? (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: an examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology,

72, 775.

Kahn, W. A. (1998). Relational systems at work. Research 39-76.

in Organizational

Behavior,

20,

Constituting

Relationships

105

in Communication

I? (1997). A nation of strangers? Association for Computing Machinery, Communications ofthe ACM, 40(12), 81-86. Kelly, H. H., & Thibault, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New

Katz,

.I. E., & Aspden,

York: Wiley. Kelly, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Knapp, M. L., Miller, G. R., & Fudge, K. (1994). Background and cultural trends in the study of interpersonal communication. In: M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds), (pp. 3-20). Knoll, K., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). Learning to work in distributed global teams [Electronic version from author’s website]. University of Texas at Austin [1998, 5/21/98]. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experiences as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28(l), 110-132. Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer networks. In: S. W. Duck & J. T. Wood (Ed.), Understudied Relationships: Off the Beaten Track (1st ed., Vol. 6, pp. 197-233). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Leicht, K. T., & Fennel, M. L. (1997). The changing organizational context of professional work. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 215-23 1. Mabry. (1975). A developmental model for small groups. Human Communication Research, 2(l), 66-74. McCall, G. J. (1970). The social organization of relationships. In: G. J. McCall, M. M. McCall, N. K. Denzin, G. D. Suttles & S. B. Kurth (Eds), Social Relationships. Chicago: Aldine. McCreary, E., & Brochet, M. (1992). Collaboration in international online teams. In: A. R. Kaye, (Ed.), Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing (pp. 69-85). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Se& and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mead, G. H. (1982). The Individual and the Social Self: Unpublished Work of George Herbert Mead. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Miller, G. R. (Ed.) (1976). Explorations in interpersonal communications. Beverly Hills: Sage. Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organizational entry: Influences, tact&, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16(I), 92-120. Moore, D. A., Curtzberg, T. R., Thompson, L. L., & Morris, M. W. (1999). Long and short routes to success in electronically mediated negotiations: Group affiliations and good vibrations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(l), 22-43. Odden, C. M., & Sias, P M. (1997). Peer communication relationships and psychological climate. Communication Quarterly, 45(3), 153-166. Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Meanings for closeness and intimacy in friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13(l), 85-107. Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1997). Making Friends in Cyberspace. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, J(4), 80-97. Parks,

M. R., & Roberts,

M.

(1998).

On-line

and off-line

relationships.

Journal

of Social and

Personal Relationships, 15(4), 517. Poole,

M.

S. (1981).

Decision

development

in small

groups

I: A comparison

of two

models.

Communications Monographs, 48, l-24. Poole,

M. S., & Roth, decision paths.

J. (1989).

Decision

development

in small

groups

Human Communication Research, 15(3), 323-356.

IV: A typology

of group

106

RAMA

KAYE HART

Rice, R. E., & Barnett, G. A. (1985). Group communication networking in an information environment: Applying metric multidimensional scaling. In: M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communications Yearbook 9 (pp. 315-338). Beverly Hills: Sage. Roberts, C. W. (Ed.) (1997). Text analysis for the social sciences: Methods for drawing statistical inferencesfrom rexrs and franscripts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Rogers, L. E., & Farace, R. V. (1975). Analysis of relational communication in dyads: New measurement procedures. Human Communication Research, I, 222-239. Rogers, E. M., & Kin&d, L. (1981). Communication Networks: Toward a new paradigm for research. New York: Free Press. Rousseau, D. M. (1997). Organizational behavior in the new organizational era. Annual Review of Psychology,

48,515-546.

Saphiere, D. M. H. (1996). Productive behaviors in global business teams (01471767/96): Elsevier Science Ltd. Stephen, T. (1987). Communication and interdependence in geographically separated relationships. Human Communication Research, 13(2), 191-210. Tjosvold, D. (1983). Managing peer relationships among subordinates. Personnel, 60(6), 13-22. Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: experimental observations over time. Organization Science, 6(2) 186-203. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hypetpersonal Interaction. Communication Research, 23(l), 3-43. Weinberg, L. (1996). Seeing through organization: Exploring the constitutive quality of social relationships. Administration & Society, 28(2), 177. Weiss, R. S. (1998). A taxonomy of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(5), 671-683. Whiting, V. R., & Reardon, K. K. (1998). Communicating from a distance: establishing commitment in a virtual office environment. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, San Diego. Wilson, E. V., & Zigurs, I. (1998). A study of interpersonal influence goals in computer-mediated communication. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, San Diego. Winstead, B. A., Darlega, V. J., & Montgomery, M. J. (1995). The quality of friendships at work and job satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12(2), 199-215. Wood, J. T., & Duck, S. W. (Ed.). (1995). Undersrudied relationships: Oafhe beaten track (1st ed., Vol. 6). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Wright, P H. (1969). A model and technique for studies of friendship. Journul of Experimental Social

Psychology,

5,295-300.

Zom, T. E. (1995). Bosses and buddies: Constructing and performing simultaneous hierarchical and close friendship relatio&rips. In: S. W. Duck & .I. T. Wood (Ed.), Understudied Relationships: Oflthe Beaten Truck (1st ed., Vol. 6, pp. 122-147). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

CONSTITUTING RELATIONSHIPS IN COMMUNICATION: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING PEER RELATIONSHIPS IN GEOGRAPHICALLY DISPERSED TEAMS Rama Kaye Hart ABSTRACT This chapter advances a newly emerging theoretical perspective which views personal relationships as comprised of the small, everyday acts of inter&ction (Duck, 1998). Not only is this perspective generated in the communications discipline appropriate for examining how relationships are understood in all types of teams, it is particularly suited for understanding close working and personal relationships which occur among peers in geographically dispersed teams. Perspectives on relationships from the disciplines of interpersonal communication and relationships, information systems, and organizational behavior are reviewed and integrated to propose a framework for examining peer relationships in geographically dispersed teams.

Virtual Teams, Volume 8, pages 85-106. 8 2001 Published by Ekevier Science Ltd. ISBN: O-7623-0843-5 85

86

RAMA

KAYE HART

INTRODUCTION The focus of this chapter is the geographically dispersed team consisting of professional, managerial and technical workers. “Team” is defined as a group of individuals responsible for a shared performance objective through interdependent action. This action may involve creating a work product, building knowledge or providing a support function. The structure of work organizations is being fundamentally altered by advancements in technology (Burris, 1998; Leicht & Fennel, 1997). Especially among professional, highly skilled employees, work is becoming an increasingly geographically separated phenomenon. This experience has been significantly impacted through advancements in communications media, which allow written and oral messaging to substitute for face-to-face, personal contact. Boggs (1998) reports that there are currently 18.4 million “mobile” workers in the United States. Mobile workers, typically in managerial and professional fields, are defined as spending three or more days per month outside their traditional office environments. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (1998) reports that telecommuting from home has nearly doubled in frequency between 1991 and 1998 (1.9 million participants versus 3.6 million). The traditional notion that work group communication takes place in a static environment, in which interpersonal interaction occurs repeatedly with a stable group is being augmented by the experience of the “virtual” work force, which conducts its work across physical and temporal space, separated by contextual differences in culture, group norms and work habits. In fact, 62% of organizations in the U.S. with more than 100 employees use some form of alternative workplace strategy. The creation of team environments to accomplish these strategies is the most commonly used approach. (Hensel, 1998).

IMPORTANCE OF WORK RELATIONSHIPS The field of organizational behavior informs us that the impact of these trends on work group communication and relationships are significant, because personal relationship formation is one of the most important processes in organizations (Zom, 1995). Zom highlights geographical dispersion of employees as a factor contributing to the difficulty in forming personal

Constituting

Relationships

in Communication

87

relationships at work. The context and form of relationship processes will vary considerably, he suggests, as bureaucratic organizations disperse and migrate to team environments. An increasing attention to the importance of peer relationships has taken place in the past decade as research studies have begun to look at particular dimensions of friendship in the work place (mainly related to communication, interaction and support) and their impact on the outcome variables of job effectiveness and satisfaction. Jehn and Shah (1997) most recently related interaction between friends (opposed to between acquaintances) to improvements in work related communication, as long as team members share an overarching commitment to their goals. Winstead, Darlega and Montgomery (1995), in a field study, found a positive relationship between the quality of work output and quality of friendships. A study by Ely (1994) focusing on relationships among women in law firms uncovered a connection between the experience of friendship in the work place and outcomes of perceived productivity and job satisfaction. The roles of peers are more significant in “computerized’ organizations, because they may communicate on a more informal level and are faced with fewer constraints of hierarchy (Burris, 1998). Illustrating this point through a study of negotiation practices over e-mail communication, Moore, Curtzberg, Thompson and Morris (1999) found that the when participants were engaging in activities to build a relationship, for example, mutual self-disclosure or shared membership in a social group, impasses in negotiations were less likely. Additionally, employees working in a dispersed environment may have an even higher likelihood of feeling disconnected and less committed to the organization than those working in a face-to-face setting, because they are not able to build strong connections to their colleagues and to the team and organizational purpose (Whiting & Reardon, 1998). Research conducted in a variety of settings has demonstrated the significance of social support through strong peer relationships in the work place and its impact on productivity, job satisfaction, and personal/professional development (Bach, 1989; Bond, Galinski & Swanberg, 1998; Bullis & Bach, 1991; Eisenberg, Monge & Miller, 1983; Henderson & Argyle, 1985; Kram & Isabella, 1985; Tjosvold, 1983). Such research supports the claim that strong peer relationships contribute to the development of a “support structure,” a basis from which there is a greater willingness to take risks in sharing knowledge, demonstrating creativity and exemplifying leadership (Kahn, 1998).

FCAMA KAYE HART Extant Knowledge of Work Relationships

Social psychology and organizational behavior literature has acknowledged that little attention has been paid to close relationships in specific contexts such as the work place (Adams & Bleiszner, 1994; Dillard, 1987; Duck, 1995; Gabarro, 1990; Hays, 1984; Jehn & Shah, 1997; Zom, 1995). In the field of organizational behavior, specifically, the study of work relationships in organizational behavior is not considered an individual area of knowledge (Kahn, 1998). Kahn points out that relationships at work have been a multidisciplinary field, comprised of role theory, communication theory, and leadership studies. In fact, Rousseau (1997), in a chapter on the emerging trends in organizational research notes that the area of interpersonal relationships has not made it into any of the organizational behavior review chapters in the American Journal of Sociology since 1979. The significant contributions from organizational behavior draw heavily on family relations to explain work relationships. Additionally, they focus almost singularly on relationships in the face-to-face environment, defining work relationships as consisting of situations in which workers are in the same physical location throughout their work time (Fine, 1986). Kahn (1998) also recognizes there is a bias toward work relationships being construed as instrumental for task accomplishment and driven primarily by cognition and rationality as opposed to emotion. He uses attachment theory to explain how functional relationships in the work place provide participants with a “strong, secure base” (Kahn, 1998, p. 41). Similar to the process by which children become more or less capable of differentiation and risk taking when they achieve a sense of support and trust from their family systems, organizational members may take risks in decision making, become more creative, acquire learning and develop their careers when they have a sense of social support. Kahn contributes to emergent perspectives in dispersed team relationships by making a strong case for the’,existence of such relationships and that they are beneficial His perspective, however, is incomplete for fully understanding relationships in dispersed teams, because he has not explained the unique processes by which these attachments are generated (or could be generated) in a dispersed environment. He realizes that attachment theory focuses on individual level dynamics and suggests what is needed is a systems level perspective. Still, the systems perspective, a major contribution of organizational theory, presents relationships as embedded in, and to some degree, influenced by a larger cultural context. In the geographically dispersed team, relationships are not enacted within a static organizational culture. For team

Constituting Relationships in Communication

89

members who meet less than once per month or even once per quarter, the cultural context is comprehended through a limited set of interactions, often devoid of the environmental stimuli such as mission statements posted on corridor walls or nuances such as pastel colored, modernistic office interior designs. Such cues, while they are not represented through human interaction, are interacted with as significant elements of the organizational environment. What is known about the geographically dispersed team context? Most research on relationships in geographically dispersed teams has centered on the differing effects of computer-mediated communication and face-to-face interaction on the work relationship. An exception is Saphiere’s (1996) study conducted to compare productive and unproductive global (and dispersed) teams. The subjects of her study were 56 members of twelve teams whose written correspondence (reports, fax, email) were content analyzed and with whom she conducted surveys and observations of team meetings. Saphiere concluded that the development of friendly, personal acquaintances was the number one contributor to productivity in globally dispersed teams. The subjects in Saphiere’s study cited the formation and maintenance of personal relationships and trust as being critical to their success. In fact, obtaining trust in dispersed settings has received attention in organizational communications literature (Jarvenpaa, Knoll & Leidner, 1998). Cramton (1999) provides a thorough analysis of the problems related to shared conceptual understanding of information in geographically dispersed teams. She includes a variety of media in her analysis but limits the research to university group settings. Fritz, Narasimhan and Rhee (1996) link the importance of social relationships to informal communications systems. The authors%ound that telecommuters (working at a distance from their main office location) perceived ad-hoc communication to be important in accomplishing work, transmitting culture and knowledge and maintaining loyalty. A study conducted by Chidambaram (1996) based on the adaptive strncturation theories of DeSanctis and Poole (1994) argues that groups adapt technology to meet their social process needs. Additionally, Chidambaram’s study found that teams supported by computer-mediated communication needed more time to develop close relationships but were able to exchange social information over an extended period of time. Chidambaram concluded that it was possible to develop close relationships over distance, given adequate time for the adaptation of communication technology and the exchange of social information. While studying the socialization skills of dispersed student teams, Knoll and Jarvenpaa (1995) found that students working to produce a common document

90

RAMA

KAYE HART

sent a slightly higher proportion of “socialization content” across computermediated channels than those not engaged in a shared output. The teams reported that the exchange of personal information created a team identity and personal familiarity. The content of messages in geographically dispersed teams has been related to goals such as identity, interaction and the development of relational resources (Wilson & Zigurs, 1998). Walther (1995, 1996) has established that dispersed teams communicating via computer-mediated channels do not lack the ability to develop relationships. His work employed the analysis of verbal and textual cues of relational communication: messages and elements of messages individuals use to describe their relationships (Burgoon & Hale, 1987) across computer-mediated interaction. Walther asserts, “it has been suggested that computer-mediated communication produces significantly different relational communication (than face-to-face communication) due to the number and types of cues available to participants” (Walther, 1995, p. 187). Relationships in organizations have been important for most of the past century, however, the framework through which we view these relationships have evolved toward a perspective of the figural individual, her attitudes, skills, behaviors and motivations. This is divergent from the historical perspective of jointly created relational reality generated by such early management scholars as Mary Parker Follett. The sciences of organizational behavior, social psychology, and sociology are focused more on the inquiry of disconnection than connection (Clarkson & Shaw, 1992). Follett presented the role of social relations as a strongly constructive force for the organization (Weinberg, 1996). From the earliest Post-Cartesians, a variety of disciplines have addressed the constitutive nature of interaction for the interpersonal relationship. The following sections will contrast the historical perspectives on relationship theory with emergent research moving us closer to the naturalist framework proposed later in the chapter. Historical, Roots of Relationship Theory

The perspectives and theoretical contributions on relationship and friendship have moved from singularly focusing on attraction and antecedents of attraction to a recognition of the full set of behaviors and developmental processes that demonstrate friendship as a socially enacted and structurally and contextually embedded process of relating (Berscheid, 1994; Hendrick, 1995). The following discussion will review these major theoretical perspectives and identify the constructs and definitions that are most relevant for inclusion in the proposed framework.

91

Constituting Relationships in Communication

Early theorists such as Wright (1969) defined relationship first and foremost as being reliant on “voluntary interdependence,” as well as other conceptual dimensions of the relationship contributing to preservation of self-wellbeing and self-worth. McCall (1970) defines relationships as comprised of a number of dimensions present within each individual including: ascription, attachment, commitment, investment, reward and dependability. He viewed interaction as the pursuit of personal ends within the context of the organization or group. Rather than constituting relationships within interaction, he defines relationship as synonymous with the purpose of the exchange, and therefore constitutes interaction within the relationship. Kelly and Thibault (1978) describe relationship in terms of satisfaction through reward and punishment and mutual interdependence as it supports individual goals. They describe continuity of the relationship as equating to success, and Hinde (1976) recognizes that continuity means each individual is affected by interactions in the past and may affect interactions the future. Hinde defines relationship as it implies first some sort of intermittent interaction between two people, involving interchanges over an extended period of time. The interchanges have some degree of mutuality in the sense that behavior of each other takes some account of the behavior of the other (Hinde, 1976, p. 14).

Hinde’s categorization of the dimensions of relationship includes content, diversity and quality of interactions. By content, he refers to action. Diversity includes the variety of activities and contexts. Quality refers to the intensity, content and presentation of verbal material and the relationship between the behavior of two participants. Altm?tn and Taylor (1973) also make assumptions about progress of the relationship in linear terms and rewards and costs associated with continuing the relationship. As for the dimensions that constitute relationship, they describe these dimensions as they relate to the social penetration process - a relational developmental process. Their dimensions include richness and breadth of interaction, uniqueness of interaction, efficiency of exchange, substitutability of interaction with another having the same meaning, synchronization and pacing, permeability and openness, voluntariness and spontaneity, and the ability to interact (with frequency). In describing workoriented relationships, Altman and Taylor indicate how their model would be used for description: Generally speaking, instrumental or work-oriented and less rapid rate of social penetration than social

relationships probably produce a lower situations since the emphasis is typically

92

RAMA directed toward often prescribed

the job rather than toward maintenance.functions role relationships and modes of behavior @. 161).

and because

KAYE there

HART are

Hays (1984) took the social penetration perspective first presented by Altman and Taylor (1973) further into the realm of a set of skills and behavioral responses, focused the breadth of interaction through shifts in content areas. The dimensions comprising relationship proposed by Hays include breadth of interaction, communication, consideration, companionship and affection. Miller and Jablin (1991) examined relationship in terms of cognitive comparisons and contrasts made by participants at the at the object level, individual level, transactional level, relational level and contextual level. Adams and Bleiszner (1994) provide a comprehensive review of the research on friendship and create a synthesis and integrative framework to combine the sociological and psychological perspectives for understanding this phenomenon. Their concept of “friendship processes” set the stage to focus on the dynamic aspects between dyad members and among network participants. The dimensions outlined by Adams and Bleiszner include displays of affection, social support, resource exchange, cooperation, accommodation, coordination, shared activities and interests, concealment, manipulation, conflict and competition. Other variables that have frequently been used to describe relationship are length and frequency of interaction, and the variety of interaction processes. However, according to Adams and Bleiszner, these do not reveal the nature of interaction in depth. Relationship research which has been more behaviorally based, such as Weiss’s (1998) taxonomy of relationships, distinguishes between attachment and affiliation, using continua including: exclusivity, persistence, grief from termination of the relationship, sustained bonds, and loneliness. Parks and Floyd (1996) acknowledge that closeness and intimacy, fundamental constructs comprising close relationships and friendships have been poorly defined. Their work has sought to develop definitions of close relationships by drawing distinctions between perceptions of closeness and intimacy, based on the expeqences and perceptions of individuals and dyads. From their research on adult friendships, they created a typology to define closeness. The results of their study indicated that self-disclosure, help and support and shared interests and activities were the three most common behaviors associated with closeness. Others included relational expression, comfort and ease of interaction, trust, acceptance, frequency of interaction, global affect, understanding, length of interaction, and the presence of advice giving. This study was primarily focused on friendship, but it is useful to examine meanings for closeness, the authors assert, in a wider array of relationships.

Constituting Relationships in Communication

93

Geographically Dispersed Relationships

Ihe bridge between the dispersed, distributed environment and relationships has begun to be built by social scientists in the area of long distance relationships (Lea & Spears, 1995; Parks & Floyd, 1997). In their text examining “understudied relationships,” editors Wood and Duck (1995) bring attention to the newly emerging types of relationships “socially situated’ in unique contexts such as the computer-mediated environment. Lea and Spears (1995) indicate that studies of geographically dispersed relationships are limited in number and these studies limit their subjects to those who communicate via asynchronous computer-transmitted messages, when, in fact, much geographically dispersed team communication occurs through a variety of media - rarely in close and face-to-face interaction, and frequently through voice communication and electronic messages (Hiltz & Wellman, 1997). Parks and Floyd (1997) argue that no current theory of relationship development requires physical information as a necessary precondition to the development of relationship. They summarize by saying, What is missing is a systematic research effort to map the prevalence of personal relationships in on-line settings, the basic demographics of relational participants, the levels of development achieved and their links to off-line or real-life settings (Parks & Floyd, 1997).

Parks and Roberts’ (1998) study of friendship development in cyberspace contributes valuable information on the process of relationship development across electronic media. Usually, news group members develop close personal relationships. Interdependence, breadth and depth of interaction, interpersonal predictability and understanding, movement to more personalized ways of communicating, commitment, and the convergence of social networks were found to be the key dimensions along which these relationships develop. Through the use of surveys with participants, they were able to determine that technological mediated environments substitute for the space created by offices and work environments in providing opportunities for team members to gather. Having concluded that the possibility for personal relationships on-line exists, they support the argument that these types of relationships must be better understood and the mechanisms contributing to their functioning must be dismantled and examined. Their own study is limited in its demography, focusing on subjects between the ages of 17 to 30 in opposite sex relationships. This focus on user groups and support groups was continued by Galegher, Sproull and Kiesler (1998) in their examination of electronic support groups and how members develop relationships through the establishment of

94

RAMA KAYE HART

legitimacy, authority and group identity. Their research showed that use of intemet-based textual communication was helpful in developing relationships similarly to face-to-face support groups. Garton, Haythomthwaite and Wellman (1997) and Rice and Bamett (1985) studied the effect of computer-mediated communication on social networks. Their findings revealed that friendships (looking at the component of social networks at the dyadic level) do exist, although they differ more in strength and symetry than do face-to-face social network relationships. Katz and Aspden (1997) researched the demographic characteristics of subjects experiencing friendships created on the Internet. They found that use of the Internet appeared to augment existing social connectivity. In other words, people who were already likely to build personal relationships were adding to their social connections through the computer-mediated environment.

Interpersonal Communications Theory: The Constructive Powers of Interaction The work of George Herbert Mead provides the social psychological grounding for the proposed framework. Mead, situated in a time when Darwinian theory of biological evolutionism guided much philosophical inquiry, focused his attention on the self and its ability to develop and change as it interacts with other organisms and the environment. His work provides the thedretical foundations for social interactionism, which was extended by Harold Blumer in 1969 to the concept of symbolic interactionism. These theories have significant relevance to the study of communication in geographically dispersed teams. Mead (1982) asserted that the individual mind can only exist in relation to the other minds with shared meaning and that hum* expression is necessary for clarity and objectivity. This emphasizes the importance of communication for creating meaningful interpretation. Without the ability to communicate in a social relationship with others, or even in a conversation of “self-talk,” there is no clarity in the ability to view the self (the “me” as opposed to the “I”) in the world or to view others “objectively” as being separate from ourselves. He examines the role of the social situation in generating meaning: In the socialsituation,there is a greaterconsciousness of meaning,we are muchmore immediatelyaware of what we are saying and doing to tbe other person than we are doing to the physical

objects

(Mead,

1982, p. 45).

Mead (1982) distinguishes the importance of meaning created through interaction. Blumer (1969) provides useful root images of symbolic interactionism. He asserts that the nature of human society or group life is that fundamentally, groups exist in interaction and must be seen in terms of

Constituting

Relationships

95

in Communication

interactions. In other words, relationship is created from what people do. Blumer equates social interaction and content: Social interaction is not the medium, but in fact is the content. It human conduct instead of being merely a means or a setting for of human conduct . . . human beings have to take into account about to do the activities of others enters as positive factors own conduct (Blumer, 1969, p. 69).

is the process that forms the expression or release what each is doing or is in the formation of their

Through this root metaphor of action as being the nature of social interaction and relationship, the role of communication content is amplified in the creation of shared meaning. This presents an interesting possibility for geographically dispersed team communication, in which interaction is bounded by differences in moments of time and distance. In such a context, perhaps we are interacting with the medium of telephone or computer technology as an intermediary between the other and ourselves. In this case, are we actually acting and reacting alone? Or, perhaps there is a greater consciousness of meaning in geographically dispersed teams, because communication in this context is predominately conducted via technological media, using “higher ordered communication” (i.e. written language). Lower-ordered communication (Mead, 1934) is much more instinctual, such as non-verbal communication enacted without significance or without reflection. Mead goes further to explain that if we are not able to reflect on, view or comprehend our own actions such as our own facial expressions which we cannot see, or our inadvertent use of body language, these gestures, or symbols are less significant. To use verbal language is considered to be “higher ordered” by Mead (1982) because it is more intentionally symbolic. The v&al gesture, then, has an importance which no other gesture has, we cannot see ourselves when our face assumes a certain expression. If we hear ourselves speak, we are more apt to pay attention (p. 65).

These concepts have significant import for geographically dispersed team communication across the variety of available media and its role in relationship development. One might argue that geographically dispersed team communication is largely comprised of “higher ordered” symbols. Because we do not share physical space in geographically dispersed teams as frequently as in faceto-face teams or as teams located in close physical proximity, we are not able to provide the additional, non-symbolic cues, which, albeit are rich in communicative complexity, are lower-ordered, in that they are not always enacted through a process of apprehension and comprehension (Kolb, 1984). What then, becomes the role of the communicative act in geographically dispersed team communication across a variety of media? We are not following

RAMA KAYE HART

%

instinctual impulses in geographically separated communication such as phone conversations or email. We are always, in those cases, thinking through meaning and creating actions in those settings based on our interpretations. We are much more aware of our symbolic gestures, with little opportunity for impulse and without the full complement of physical cues available to us. How, then, do the small communicative acts accumulate across various media to contribute to peer relationships? It is my assertion that the geographically dispersed team experience can be interpreted from the theoretical perspectives of social and symbolic interactionism. These perspectives generate the following assertions: (1) Interaction is an important source of meaning for members of geographically dispersed teams. (2) Geographically dispersed teams, using verbal and written language to communicate, rely on symbolic interaction in the enactment of their relationships. (3) This reliance on symbolic interaction stresses the constructive role communication has in developing strong peer relationships.

INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

THEORY

Communications theory focuses on the actions involved in relating, the exchange that takes place in order for inter-action to occur, and therefore implies a relationship through the action exchanged between individuals. Communication has been defined as: a process in which participants create and share information with one another in order to reach mutual understanding (Rogers & Kin&d, 1981); and as communication between persons, occurring in face-to-face message exchanges in a small number, through maximum sensory channels (Miller, 1976). Gumperz’s (1982) definition works well in understanding geographically dispersed teams, because much of the communication occurs as participants alternate between cognition and interaction, between apprehension and comprehension. He asserts: Communication is a two-step process in which the speaker first takes in stimuli from the outside environment, evaluating and selecting from among them in the light of his(her) own cultural background, personal history and what he(she) knows about his interlocutors. He then decides on the norms that apply to the situation at hand. These norms determine the speaker’s selection from among the communicative options available for encoding his intent (Gumperz, 1982, p. 15).

The definitions stated above are consistent with the symbolic interactionist paradigm described earlier and with Duck’s (1994) emphasis of the role

97

constituting Relationships in Communication

language and interaction have in forming relationships. However, it is important to note that the mere fact of interaction does not make relationship implicit (Duck, 1998); relationships are formed by cognition and meaning making as a result of communication. Extending this clarification to organizational communication, Boyce (1995) refers to the purposeful use of shared storytelling (in face-to-face settings) to confirm the shared experiences and shared meaning of organizational members. Boyce describes how, through shared storytelling, the organizational reality, sense of purpose, group planning, and decision making can be impacted. In the geographically dispersed setting, as in all symbolic interaction, shared meaning generated through communication is based partly on the environment. Shared meaning is created by a combination of the attitudes of the participants combined with their understanding of the broader organizational context (Beamer, 1995). The location of the team, the physical spaces that they share and the objects occupying that space provide grounding for the team members in a meaningful shared history. (Altman & Taylor, 1973). However, geographically dispersed communication is mediated by more technological “places and objects” than communication occurring in a face-to-face setting. Geographically separated communication occurs through speech, reading and writing, and each is a very different type of interaction from the other. There is a significant gap in understanding how enactment of geographically separated relationships occurs through media other than computer-mediated communication (McCreary & Brochet, 1992; Chesebro, 1995). Some limited research has been conducted via other forms of communication. For example, Hopper (1992) conducted conversation analysis of telephone conversations in the work setting. Stephen (1987) found that in geographically separated marital relationships, shared meaning was created through phone conversations and letters, while Abel (1990) conducted field studies of work groups employing audio and video conversation, but concluded that technology was inadequate for establishing relationship - it could only be achieved, in his view, in person. The Importance of the “Communication

Event”

Having established that communication has constitutive power in developing relationships, it logically follows that the element of the communication exchange with the most salience for dispersed team relationships would be the “jointly enacted communication episode.” This was stressed by Goldsmith and Baxter (1996) as the “joint accomplishments of participants as they interact rather than the communication acts of autonomous individuals” (p. 88).

RAMA

KAYE HART

Hymes (1986) defines this episode (using traditional forms of communication media) as the “speech event.” In geographically dispersed teams, this can be referred to as the “communication event,” since oral communication is but one form of interaction for dispersed team members. The speech event is defined as a stretch of utterances (larger than a single utterance) focused on the interaction between communicators, and as specifically what occurs in adaptation and response to the environment and the other speaker (Gumperz, 1982). Gumperz explains that “although speech events are popularly thought of as units of content or activities, their social significance derives from the relationship they establish between certain types of content and certain types of verbal routines” (p. 17). To characterize how speech events constitute personal relationships, Goldsmith and Baxter (1996) conducted four studies using diary research to obtain detailed, unstructured descriptions from college students about their close personal interactions. Data were collected regarding the nature of the relationship, the purposes and outcomes of the interaction, the sequences and organization of events, the tone and mood of the conversation, the channel of communication, norms and background knowledge necessary for understanding the event, and the label or phrase the respondent might use to describe the event. These data were compiled and analyzed to determine the type of talk respondents recognized, commonly used labels for the type of talk and the differentiating point among the types. While this study is limited in its applicability to other settings and relationship types, and is heavily reliant on self-reported information, it proves to be a pivotal shift away from constructing relationships on the basis of individual characteristics, attitudes, behaviors or motivation. It serves as a charter inquiry into the importance of small, everyday acts of communicating in forming relationships. The proposed framework, along with current research I have undertaken, draws on Baxter and Goldsmith’s (1996) conceptualization of relationships. Such comprehensive study of the communication typology enacted by geographically dispersed te&n members with “strong” and “weak” personal and working relationships is consistent with Goldsmith and Baxter’s suggestion that future studies further explore the dynamics of relationships through observation of communication events as they occur. To extend their work into a field setting significantly different from that of the collegiate dyadic friendship, the framework proposed here and the research which is underway goes beyond simply applying their existing taxonomy, and seeks to create a unique taxonomy of communication for geographically dispersed team member relationships. It also will augment the “speech” events occurring in verbal, face-to-face communication to include “communication” events _suchas

Constituting

Relationships

99

in Communication

electronic mail, computer-mediated, synchronous electronic communication and audio and video teleconferencing.

EMERGENT,

INTERDISCIPLINARY

PERSPECTIVES

As this chapter has attempted to establish, there are few existing models for relationship in geographically dispersed teams outside of anecdotal information or traditional team development research based on face-to-face interaction. Relationship theorists have begun to focus more on behavior, skills, and social processes as opposed to antecedents of attraction, the social exchange and penetration processes of relationship. However, other than Steven Duck, none have expressed a perspective more adequately for explaining the condition of geographically separated relationships embedded in diverse cultures and contexts. In Duck’s (1998) historical perspective on relationship theory, he provides a useful metaphor to understand how relationships have been redefined over the past 20 years. In describing the term “relationships,” the noun form is given to the root verb, to “relate,” and therefore, defines the boundaries of existence of a relationship like the walls of a “vessel,” which contains individuals as they move and act. Extending this to typical organizational relationships, it is apparent that the same container metaphor applies: leadership, followership, mentorship, colleague&p. All these concepts, linguistically, imply “bodies” which “carry” the everyday acts of leading, following, mentoring and working together. I assert that in the new environment of organizational life, that is, the temporary workforce, the flexible work arrangement, telecommuting, and geographically dispersed teams, long established notions of relating will not “capturev or “hold” these emerging experiences. The basis for this assertion is the reality of team life in the geographically dispersed environment. Physical spaces are being replaced by virtual spaces where employees are coming together to create shared purposes and identities. Further extending Duck’s assertions, attention must be paid to the everyday, seemingly insignificant acts of relating in the work environment. These actions are the heart of the relationship themselves. System level organizational processes, slowly evolving shifts in relationships, and individual characteristics can not be relied upon to define relationship when the context is so rapidly changing and as diverse as in a geographically dispersed team. Instead of viewing the individual actors as being “in a relationship,” the relationship should be viewed as being “in individuals,” (Duck, 1998). Instead of people being “in team relationships,” team relationships can be viewed as being “in people.” This is an especially critical re-framing when the variety of

RAh4A KAYE HART

100

media used to conduct the everyday acts of team relationships are so diverse and ever-expanding. Relationships between team members must be further analyzed across the variety of media used to carry them out. This framework, therefore, defines geographically dispersed relationships as being: (a) in team members, (b) in the content of their everyday interactions, (c) in the communicative action across a variety of media, (d) enacted through the joint “communication event,” and (e) significantly contributing to strong relationships (or, as we have clarified, “relating”) among peers in the work setting. This argument is strongly connected to the social and symbolic interaction processes described by Mead (1982) and Blumer (1969). Since meaning is created through interaction, groups exist in interaction and can be comprehended primarily in terms of interaction; it is appropriate to discard the assumption that the organizational members exist in teams, as if the team is some abstract structure that exists without action. The proposed framework will bring to the forefront the relating and relationships found in the communication content rather than focusing on what can be considered the “vessels” of relationship, such as group structure and media use. Utilizing Duck’s (1994) perspective for understanding relationships in dispersed teams seems an appropriate response to Rousseau’s (1997) call for a shift in organizational thinking from “organization” to “organizing” so that we may reconnect with the original definitions of organization as process rather than as outcome. She explains that such a shift would return our attention to the seemingly insignificant acts of interaction and organizing, therefore making them figural and constructive again.

SUMMARY This chapter proposes a theoretical framework for understanding relationships in geographically dispersed teams which is based on assertions grounded in the fields of organizational behavior, information systems, interpersonal relationships, and interpersonal communication. Root epistemological assumptions are drawn from the social psychological school of social interactionism. This framework (and the informing literature) is summarized as follows: (1) Geographically dispersed team relationships are imbedded in a dynamic organizational culture. (Organizational Behavior). (2) Strong relationships in geographically dispersed teams are important for many outcomes related to job effectiveness, performance, commitment and satisfaction. (Organizational Behavior).

Constituting

Relationships

in Communication

101

(3) Relationships are achievable in geographically dispersed teams using a variety of media to replace frequent face-to-face content. (Information Systems). (4) The existing frameworks from relationship theory research are outdated and inappropriate for explaining geographically dispersed team relationships. (Interpersonal Relationships). (5) Relationships in geographically dispersed teams can be understood most appropriately through a social construction, symbolic interaction perspective, which emphasizes the constitutive properties of interaction. (Interpersonal Communication). (6) The salient communication unit comprising interaction in geographically separated relationships is the “communication event,” occurring between joint interlocutors. (Interpersonal Communications). (7) Relationships are constituted by the small, everyday acts of relationship. Geographically dispersed team relationships occur in the interaction between members. (Interpersonal Relationships). This framework has significant implications for research and practice in geographically dispersed teams. Currently, research is underway to utilize this framework for examining the nature of interpersonal relationships in teams along several dimensions. First, the framework allows a focus on the “communication event,” which takes into account the nature of the whole interaction, created by the combination of two or more participants, rather than the fragments of their conversation or utterances of one participant. In addition to a focus on units of speech and communication at the individual action level (Poole, 1981), the most commonly used communication typologies of group?nteraction (Bales, 1950; Fisher, 1980; Hirokawa, 1985; Mabry, 1975; Poole & Roth, 1989) explain communication relevant to instrumental actions such as decision making. Topics have been developed regarding communication focused on major developmental processes, such as relational communication (Burgoon, Buller, Hale & DeTurck, 1984; Rogers & Farace, 1975; Walther, 1995). The proposed framework allows a broader stance regarding communication events. All communication events occurring within peer relationships in teams may be categorized, regardless of whether or not they promote the decision making process or whether they consist of major processes or mundane, everyday communication. Finally, the proposed framework allows for additions to the existing knowledge base regarding communication content in work teams across media, which has to date been largely derived from live observation or analysis of transcripts of face-to-face groups (Bales, 1950; Donnellon, 1996; Fisher, 1980;

102

RAMA

KAYE HART

Hirokawa, 1985; Knapp, Miller & Fudge, 1994; Mabry, 1975; Poole, 1989) and telephone conversations (Hopper, 1992). Geographically dispersed communication does not contain the elemental features of face-to-face communication in teams such as close physical proximity, frequency of interaction, and breadth and depth of physical cues through non-verbal communication. Many geographically dispersed teams actually experience face-to-face communication less frequently than other forms of communication such as email or voice mail. Traditional communication typologies were based primarily on homogenous groups studied in experimental or laboratory conditions and university settings. If we applied existing interaction categorization schemes to all the forms of media used in geographically dispersed team communication, we would be overlaying assumptions about communication confent onto very different forms of communication context. As increased geographically dispersed team communication occurs, our human communication ability must be continually developed. This framework provides a basis through which substantive data acquired from the field setting can inform that development. The categorization schemes (developed based on this framework) will inform researchers and practitioners alike in the communicative processes that contribute to the development of interpersonal relationships in this ever-expanding organiza, tional context.

REFERENCES Abel, M. J. (1990). Experiences in an exploratory distributed organization. In: .I. Galegher, R. Kraut & C. Egido (MS), Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work (pp. 489-510). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Adams, R., & Bleiszner, G. (1994). An integrative conceptual framework for friendship research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, II, 163-184. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social Penetration: The development of interpersonal ’ relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bach, B. W. (1989). The effectiof multiplex relationships upon. innovation adoption: A reconsideration of Rogers’ model. Communication Monographs, 56(2), 133-150. Bales, R. E (1950). Interaction Process Analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison Wesley. Baxter, L. A. (1991). Content Analysis. In: B. A. Montgomery & S. W. Duck (Eds), Studying Interpersonal Interaction. New York: The Guilford Press. Baxter, L. A., & Bridge K. (1992). Blended relationships: Friends as work associates. Western Journal

of Communication,

56(3),

200-225.

Beamer, L. (1995). A schemata model for intercultural encounters and case study: The emperor and the envoy. Journal of Business Communication, 32, 141-161. Berscheid, E. (1994). Interpersonal Relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 45,79-129. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

constitufing Boggs,

Relationships

in Communication

103

R. (1998). Mobile Worker Profile, Demographics and Technology Use. Framingham, MA: International Data Corporation. Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E., & Swanberg, J. (1998). The 1997 National Study of the Changing Worybrce (W98-01): Families and Work Institute. Boyce, M. E. (1995). Discussion procedures and decision making performance: A test of a functional perspective. Human Communication Research, 12,203-224. Bullis, C., & Bach, B. W. (1991). An explication and test of communication network content and multiplexity as predictors of organizational identification. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55(2), 18&197. Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Hale, J. L., & DeTurck, M. A. (1984). Relational messages associated with nonverbal behaviors. Human Communication Research, 10(3), 35 l-378. Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54(l), 19-41. Burris, B. (1998). Computerization of the Workforce. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 141-157. Chesebro, J. W. (1995). Communication technologies as cognitive systems. In: J. T. Wood (Ed.), Toward the Twenty-First Century: The Future of Speech Communication (pp. 1546). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc. Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS Quarterly, 20(2),143-165. Clarkson, P., & Shaw, P (1992). Human relationships at work in organizations. Management Education and Development, 23(l), 18. Corson, D. L., & Enz, C. A. (1999). Predicting psychological empowerment among service workers: The effect of support-based relationships. Human Relations, 52(2), 205-224. Cramton, C. D. (1999). The mutual knowledge problems and its consequences in geographically dispersed teams. Unpublished Manuscript. D’Andrade, R. G., &Wish, M. (1985). Speech act theory in quantitative research on interpersonal behavior. Discourse Processes, L?(2), 229-259. DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 52, 121-147. Dillard, J. D. (1987). Close relationships at work: Perceptions of the motives and performance of rela$nal participants. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 17%193. Donnellon, A. (1996). Team Talk - The Power ofLanguage in Team Dynamics. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Duck, S. W. (1994). Meaningful Relationships (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Duck, S. W. (1995). On the examination of meaning and relationships. Paper presented at the Western States Communication Association Annual Convention, Portland, Oregon. Duck, S. W., West, L., & Acitelli, L. K. (1997). Sewing the field: The tapestry of relationships in life and research. In: S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions (2nd ed., pp. l-24). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Duck, S. W. (1998). On the linkages between management, communication, research and personal relationships, but not necessarily in that order. Paper presented at the 1998 Academy of Management Meeting, San Diego, San Diego. Eisenberg, E. M., Monge, P. R., & Miller, K. I. (1983). Involvement in communication networks as a predictor of organizational commitment. Human Communication Research, 10(2), 179-201. Ely, R. J. (1994). The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 203-238.

104

RAMAKAYEHART

Fine, G. A. (1986). Friendships in the workplace. In: V. J. Darlega & B. A. Wmstead (Eds), Friendship and Social Interaction (pp. 185-206). New York: Springer-Verlag. Fisher, B. A. (1980). Small group decision making. New Yorlc: McGraw Hill. Ford, I. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20,541-570. Fritz, M. B. W., Narasimhan, 8, & Rhea, H. S. (1996). Tke impact of remote work on informal organizational communication. 1999: Electronic Source. Gabarro, J. J. (1990). The development of working relationships. In: J. Galegher, R. Kraut & C. Egido (Eds), Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foun&ions of Cooperative Work (pp. 79-l 10). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Galegher, J., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1998). Legitimacy, authority and community in electronic support groups. Written Communication, 15(4), 493-530. Garton, L., Haythomthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1997). Studying online social networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications, 3( 1). l-26. Goldsmith, D. J., & Baxter, L. A. (1996). Constituting relationships in tallc: A taxonomy of speech events in social and personal relationships. Human Communication Research, 23(l), 87-l 14. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, M. J. (1993). Issues in studying the mediation of expectancy effects: A taxonomy of expectancy situations. Interpersonal Expectations: Theory, Research, and Applications (pp. 350-378). New York, NY Cambridge University Press. Hays, R. B. (1984). The development and maintenance of friendship. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships,

I, 75-98.

Henderson, M. A., & Argyle, M. (1985). Social support by four categories of work colleagues: Relationships between activities, stress and satisfaction. Journal of Occuphtional Behaviour,

6(3),

229-239.

Hendrick, S. S. (1995). Close relationships research: Applications to counseling psychology. Counseling

Psychologist,

23(4),

649-665.

Hensel, D. Q. (1998). LaSalle partners and IFMA study shows traditional workplace takes a new direction. Houston, TX: International Facilities Management Association. Hiltz, S. R., & Wellman, B. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom. Communications of the ACM, (September), 44. Hinde, R. A. (1976). On describing relationships. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 17(l), 1-19. I Hirokawa, R. (1985). Discussion procedures and decision making performance: a test of a functional perspective. Hump Communication Research, 9(4), 293-305. Hopper, R. (1992). Telephone Conversations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Hymes, D. (1986). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In: D. Hymes & J. H. Gumperz (Eds), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication (pp. 35-71). New York Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 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, (Spring), 29. Jehn, K., & Shah, P. I? (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: an examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology,

72, 775.

Kahn, W. A. (1998). Relational systems at work. Research 39-76.

in Organizational

Behavior,

20,

Constituting

Relationships

105

in Communication

I? (1997). A nation of strangers? Association for Computing Machinery, Communications ofthe ACM, 40(12), 81-86. Kelly, H. H., & Thibault, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New

Katz,

.I. E., & Aspden,

York: Wiley. Kelly, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Knapp, M. L., Miller, G. R., & Fudge, K. (1994). Background and cultural trends in the study of interpersonal communication. In: M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds), (pp. 3-20). Knoll, K., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). Learning to work in distributed global teams [Electronic version from author’s website]. University of Texas at Austin [1998, 5/21/98]. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experiences as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28(l), 110-132. Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer networks. In: S. W. Duck & J. T. Wood (Ed.), Understudied Relationships: Off the Beaten Track (1st ed., Vol. 6, pp. 197-233). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Leicht, K. T., & Fennel, M. L. (1997). The changing organizational context of professional work. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 215-23 1. Mabry. (1975). A developmental model for small groups. Human Communication Research, 2(l), 66-74. McCall, G. J. (1970). The social organization of relationships. In: G. J. McCall, M. M. McCall, N. K. Denzin, G. D. Suttles & S. B. Kurth (Eds), Social Relationships. Chicago: Aldine. McCreary, E., & Brochet, M. (1992). Collaboration in international online teams. In: A. R. Kaye, (Ed.), Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing (pp. 69-85). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Se& and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mead, G. H. (1982). The Individual and the Social Self: Unpublished Work of George Herbert Mead. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Miller, G. R. (Ed.) (1976). Explorations in interpersonal communications. Beverly Hills: Sage. Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organizational entry: Influences, tact&, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16(I), 92-120. Moore, D. A., Curtzberg, T. R., Thompson, L. L., & Morris, M. W. (1999). Long and short routes to success in electronically mediated negotiations: Group affiliations and good vibrations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(l), 22-43. Odden, C. M., & Sias, P M. (1997). Peer communication relationships and psychological climate. Communication Quarterly, 45(3), 153-166. Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Meanings for closeness and intimacy in friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13(l), 85-107. Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1997). Making Friends in Cyberspace. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, J(4), 80-97. Parks,

M. R., & Roberts,

M.

(1998).

On-line

and off-line

relationships.

Journal

of Social and

Personal Relationships, 15(4), 517. Poole,

M.

S. (1981).

Decision

development

in small

groups

I: A comparison

of two

models.

Communications Monographs, 48, l-24. Poole,

M. S., & Roth, decision paths.

J. (1989).

Decision

development

in small

groups

Human Communication Research, 15(3), 323-356.

IV: A typology

of group

106

RAMA

KAYE HART

Rice, R. E., & Barnett, G. A. (1985). Group communication networking in an information environment: Applying metric multidimensional scaling. In: M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communications Yearbook 9 (pp. 315-338). Beverly Hills: Sage. Roberts, C. W. (Ed.) (1997). Text analysis for the social sciences: Methods for drawing statistical inferencesfrom rexrs and franscripts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Rogers, L. E., & Farace, R. V. (1975). Analysis of relational communication in dyads: New measurement procedures. Human Communication Research, I, 222-239. Rogers, E. M., & Kin&d, L. (1981). Communication Networks: Toward a new paradigm for research. New York: Free Press. Rousseau, D. M. (1997). Organizational behavior in the new organizational era. Annual Review of Psychology,

48,515-546.

Saphiere, D. M. H. (1996). Productive behaviors in global business teams (01471767/96): Elsevier Science Ltd. Stephen, T. (1987). Communication and interdependence in geographically separated relationships. Human Communication Research, 13(2), 191-210. Tjosvold, D. (1983). Managing peer relationships among subordinates. Personnel, 60(6), 13-22. Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: experimental observations over time. Organization Science, 6(2) 186-203. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hypetpersonal Interaction. Communication Research, 23(l), 3-43. Weinberg, L. (1996). Seeing through organization: Exploring the constitutive quality of social relationships. Administration & Society, 28(2), 177. Weiss, R. S. (1998). A taxonomy of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(5), 671-683. Whiting, V. R., & Reardon, K. K. (1998). Communicating from a distance: establishing commitment in a virtual office environment. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, San Diego. Wilson, E. V., & Zigurs, I. (1998). A study of interpersonal influence goals in computer-mediated communication. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, San Diego. Winstead, B. A., Darlega, V. J., & Montgomery, M. J. (1995). The quality of friendships at work and job satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12(2), 199-215. Wood, J. T., & Duck, S. W. (Ed.). (1995). Undersrudied relationships: Oafhe beaten track (1st ed., Vol. 6). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Wright, P H. (1969). A model and technique for studies of friendship. Journul of Experimental Social

Psychology,

5,295-300.

Zom, T. E. (1995). Bosses and buddies: Constructing and performing simultaneous hierarchical and close friendship relatio&rips. In: S. W. Duck & .I. T. Wood (Ed.), Understudied Relationships: Oflthe Beaten Truck (1st ed., Vol. 6, pp. 122-147). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

ONEFOOTINAGLOBALTEAM,ONE FOOTATTHELOCALSITE:MAKING SENSEOUTOFLIVINGINTWO WORLDSSIMULTANEOUSLY Janice A. Klein and Betty J. Barrett ABSTRACT The classic tension between differentiation and integration is played out between local and global perspectives within a globally dispersed team (GDT). It occurs as organizations attempt to develop corporate-wide processes across globally dispersed sites while simultaneously encouraging local innovation and adaptation. The tension between local and global interests is apparent in GDTs comprised of part-time members, pulled from their daily jobs, and charged with developing global processes for implementation at their local sites. Team members share a global perspective of organizational conditions or competitive factors that is ofen not understood or appreciated by their local supervision and coworkers. They must also navigate local conditions not appreciated by their remote teammates. This chapter presents a model to help understand the dynamics at play and the issues still to be addressed by researchers and practitioners.

Virtual Teams, Volume 8, pages 107-125. 0 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. ISBN: o-7623-0843-5 107

108

JANICE A. KLEIN

AND BE’lTY

J. BARRETT

INTRODUCTION Sergio, a manufacturing engineer in an electronics plant, is a member of a globally dispersed team that is tasked with developing global best practices for the manufacturing processes across six plants using similar process technology. He and his fellow team members, manufacturing engineers from the other plants around the world, meet via an audio conference weekly to share process specifications and procedures and to agree on one global standard. In the interim, they regularly exchange e-mails and telephone calls. In addition, the team meets quarterly on a face-to-face basis at one of the plants, providing an opportunity to see each plant’s and team member’s local environment. Once a standard is determined, members are then expected to facilitate the implementation of that process at their local site. The team has been meeting for ten months. During the first few months, team members grew to like one another and worked well together. Then the meetings gradually began to deteriorate. Several team members appeared reluctant to discuss whether or not their plants had encountered specific problems or other unique issues at a local level. Frustration rose and eventually climaxed in a heated debate with team members accusing one another of trying to manipulate the global practice to benefit their home locations. What went wrong? By most standards, Sergio’s team did everything right. The team had recognized the importance of building trust between team members (Handy, 1995; Jarvenpaa, Knoll & Leidner, 1998). Their first meeting was a two-day face-to-face meeting that included several teambuilding exercises for the team members to get to know one another and learn ways to work together in a distributed work team environment. Senior management kicked off the meeting to emphasize the importance of their task. Team members were carefully selected to ensure that the right skills and expertise was available on the team. The organizational goals for the team were discussed, clearly defined, and agreed upon by team members. The team selected a team’, leader and was assigned a’ coach/facilitator by corporate headquarters to facilitate each meeting. They also recognized the need for virtual tools to facilitate team communications (Hollingshead & McGrath, 1995; Townsend, DeMarie & Hendrickson, 1998; Warkentin, Sayeed & Hightower, 1997). They spent time making sure they were applying the right communications mode for the right information exchange and trained all team members on the use of those technologies (Goodman & Darr, 1996; McGrath, Arrow, Gruenfeld, Hollingshead 8z Connor, 1993). In addition, they established team norms and communication protocols that were strictly adhered to (PenaMora, Hussein, Vadhavkar & Benjamin, 1999).

One Foot in a Global Team, One Foot at the Local Site

109

But internal team dynamics and information exchange is only one half of the equation. Our research has shown that the application of best practices around team processes and collaborative technologies are critical but insufficient if the natural tension between global and local priorities is ignored. It seems like we have forgotten the basics and the need for a supportive organizational context (Hackman, 1987). Senior executives of global businesses have long recognized the need to find ways to provide autonomy to allow regional business leaders to meet local market needs. With the advent of information technologies, organizations are now involving employees at all levels in global activities. Like their leaders, they are struggling with similar issues but with the additional complication of aligning priorities across multiple levels of the hierarchy. Table 1 outlines two extreme scenarios. The right hand column describes the optimal outcome where team members openly share their ideas and experiences with the goal of global optimization. In order for this to happen, there must be mutual adaptation throughout the entire organization in an effort to align global and local goals and objectives. When this happens, team members from local sites share and build upon each other’s expertise to develop an expanded knowledge base. All too often, as was evidenced in Sergio’s team, a tug of war exists between local and global interests. If the corporate objective is perceived to be a global practice that will be imposed across all locations, team members may try to steer the team’s output to optimize their local situation. Their peers back home

l

Table 1.

Two Extreme Scenarios.

Tug of War

Global/Local

Headquarters

Standardize

Local

Protect local interests: RR scout Implement piecemeal Local

Global

Team

local

practice

Mutual

Alignment

headquarters/local

Share best practices Learn best practices Translate/implement

change

best practice

change

11

u optimization

Frustration: uneven sharing distrust “lies” Narrow shared knowledge

Global

optimization

Increased Expanding

base

levels of interdependence shared knowledge base

110

JANICE A. KLEIN

AND BETTY

J. BARRETT

will likely expect them to present their plant in a positive light while protecting its interests and secrets. They will also likely be expected to uncover and exploit opportunities to implement improvements made by other plants to optimize their local objectives. As a result, uneven sharing of best practices may generate distrust and create perceptions of “lies” or fabrications. What we are seeing here is merely a parallel of the drama that is often played out at the business unit or subsidiary level of many multinational companies. While its dispersed resources and decentralized decision making allows national subsidiaries to respond to local needs, the fragmentation of activities also leads to inefficiency. Learning also suffers, because knowledge is not consolidated and does not flow among the various parts of the company. As a result, local innovations often represent little more than the efforts of subsidiary management to protect its turf and autonomy, or reinventions of the wheel caused by blocked communication or the not-invented-here syndrome (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1992, p. 522).

Why does this happen? Most of the literature on globally dispersed teams focuses on the importance of team processes and collaborative technologies to develop trust among team members who are separated by time, distance and cultural barriers. There is no question that the team composition, structure, processes and communications play a role but, as we will illustrate, an important unexplored factor is the influence of corporate and local strategies, practices and cultures. As shown in Fig. 1, the willingness of team members to trust one another, share their expertise and their location’s best practices, and then help in the facilitation and implementation of global and local change

Willingness

~

Corporate polices & practices

Fig. 1. Aligning

to trust fe!low team members,

share knowledge & best practices, implement corporate and local

and

change

Global, Local and Team Processes.

One Foot in a Global Team, One Foot at the Local Site

111

ultimately lies at the intersection between the horizontal (team processes and collaborative technologies) and vertical (global and local) polices and practices. There are many different types of globally dispersed teams ranging from teams tasked with designing a new product to developing a common global process to creating a learning organization. Each has a unique strategic objective and requires a different set of human resource practices (Crandall & Wallace, 1998; Snell, Snow, Davison & Hambrick, 1998). Although the tension between local and global priorities exists in all teams to some extent, it tends to be the greatest when teams tackle problems in which the resolutions make real changes at the local level that are counter to immediate local interests and are perceived to focus on corporate or division headquarter interests. A good example of such teams is one tasked with developing and propagating common global manufacturing processes. In many cases, such as Sergio’s, the global practices are perceived as imposed standards that inhibit local innovation and run counter to local cultural norms. To understand the tenuous position of many global team members, it is necessary to look at global teams from the perspective of multiple stakeholders.

GLOBAL TEAMS FROM MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES Global team members, by the very nature of their teams, represent diverse stakeholder interests. For purposes of this chapter, we are focusing on teams that are comprised of local subject experts from across several globally dispersed locations brought together with representatives of a headquarters or coordinating unit (e.g. corporate or division staff group), as shown in Fig. 2. It is important to reiterate that the members of these teams are typically individual contributors in the middle or lower ranks of an organization’s hierarchy at both the remote (local) sites and at the headquarters unit. Since a corporate or divisional headquarters group typically convenes most global teams, we begin by taking a headquarters’ perspective and look at the impact that an organization’s global strategies and practices can have on how team members perceive their role on the team. Next we will examine the team from a local perspective to understand the pressures placed on team members from their managers and peers at their home site. We then consider how the experience and background of individual team members influence their personal view of their role in aligning local and global stakeholder interests. Finally, we turn to the team, itself, and examine how the team’s internal processes can aid or hinder individual team members in making sense out of

JANICE A. KLEIN AND BETTY J. BARBElT Global TCM Headquarters & Local Site Representatives

8888 Headquarters Staff

Fig. 2. Multiple Stakeholders.

the two worlds in which they find themselves. We will see that it is the combination of these four perspectives that enable team members to look at their local site through global eyes while simultaneously incorporating local needs into the global perspective. Headquarters Level Considerations A corporation’s overall global business strategy sets the climate for how the local sites and individual team members view their role within the global team. At issue is whether the coordinating unit, e.g. corporate or division headquarters, takes a centralized or distributed approach to managing remote locations and to the development and diffusion of knowledge (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1992). If the chosen strategy is to manage the global business on a regional or local basis, local priorities tend to supersede global objectives. Convening a group of local site representatives to work on a global initiative may mean asking those representatives to place global issues above local concerns. If the corporation has created competition between sites for future business, local sites will be unwilling to share their knowledge and practices. As one team leader noted, “Leaders must sacrifice short-term objectives locally to have long-term successes at a distance but [company’s] culture is to compete against each other.” The role that the coordinating unit’s representatives (i.e. team members from corporate or division headquarters) assume will influence remote site team members’ perceptions of the headquarters view of why the team has been brought together and, ultimately, the overall effectiveness of the team (Gast,

One Foot in a Global Team, One Foot at the Local Site

113

2000). Whether or not these individuals act as team leaders, facilitators or just members of the team, they have access to information and resources to which local team members are not privy. A key challenge will be to help identify and demonstrate how the local sites might benefit from the global initiatives. If the person coordinating globally has his role clearly spelled out, and the person a local shop does so as well, they will support each other. When the local company advantage of belonging to a global business area, everything goes more smoothly Vries & Florent-Treaty, 1999, p. 93).

running sees the (Kets de

As employees across the firm learn that there is valuable expertise available in each location, the “not invented here” syndrome can begin to dissolve and team members can develop a network of resources to help solve local problems. Furthermore, those organizations that have historically demonstrated that they value local level knowledge will have a better chance at getting local team members to share their knowledge. Openness to ideas from every part of the organization and willingness by the coordinating unit to adapt to local inputs will open the door for greater innovation, and ultimately increase the chances for success in developing and implementing global best practices. Globally dispersed teams are like co-located ones in their need to feel supported and have their efforts validated by the organization (Yoon & Lim, 1999). The idea that support includes tangible resources in the form of budgets for computers, office supplies, travel funds, but also intangible support, e.g. clear priorities, seems most important. Recent research has shown that physical dispersion has no impact on performance outcomes for teams working on high priority activities, while co-located teams perform better than distributed ones on projects that do not have high level strategic importance (Lucas, 2000). In other words, the tension between local and global priorities becomes moot when bbth headquarters and local management have identified a project to be critical to an organization’s competitiveness. When that occurs, local management, as well as global, provides ample support. For projects that are not identified as strategically important, local management is likely to preempt the work and time of team members. One team member put it well when he said, “Teams need support and they work well when they sense support. Leadership at any level has to keep an eye on those signs.” Local Level Considerations Although team members focus on issues broader than their local site, their participation with the team often reflects their local circumstances (Barrett, 2000; Rennecker, 2001). The number one concern at a remote site is the costbenefit ratio of sharing local level expertise with sister plants or

JANICE A. KLEJN AND BET-l-Y J. BARRETT corporate/division headquarters. When locations are in competition with one another and the long-term economic viability of a location is in question, there will be a natural reluctance to share. The location that is in the power seat will tend to be more open provided they do not see sharing as taking away their advantage. Ultimately, accountability and reward systems influence the level of participation by local team members but, all too often, organizations have been slow to adapt their human resource policies to encompass globally dispersed teams (Crandall & Wallace, 1998; Snell & Snow et al., 1998). Global team members typically find themselves rewarded at the local level for local activities and rarely evaluated or rewarded on their global team performance. Local front-line experts from across the plant network often report directly to local supervisors who typically do not have the output of the global team as one of their measurables but do have direct influence over the team members’ performance evaluation, merit increases and long-term career opportunities. As a result, their focus is on short-term local plant priorities. Members of the global team may well be put in a bind if they devote significant time and energy on global team activities. As one team member noted, lack of local management buy-in is one of the main barriers to team effectiveness, If you are on a team working for global improvement and if local management doesn’t support it, the different directions for each group may mean it won’t happen. Eocal management has to buy in for the team to be effective.

The situation is aggravated when global team members have access to information or influence that their local supervisors do not have. Supervisors who are not directly involved in the team’s activities often are aware that the team exists but have little actual buy-in to team goals. For example it is difficult to convince a production manager that a line should go down in order to comrnonize processes or equipment when the comrnonization project is a corporate goal rather than a local initiative. The tension is even worse when resources, e.g. travel budgets, time, and staffing, come out of a local budget. As one team member noted, ’ Travel is a big fight because the managers at the plants have to be convinced. Sometimes I get ‘beat up’ when they ask how their specific plant will benefit. There is still a plant focus. The global focus is not there. They are still measured by plant-based measures. There is conflict between the plants and [company].

The electronic communications available at a location also influence the ease of participation within a global team. A remote site’s information technology infrastructure often limits team member access to shared databases or links to videoconferences. For example, in developing countries the telephone system

One Foot in a Global Team, One Foot at the Local Site

115

can be so slow that it can take a team member two hours to access e-mail (Prodonoff, 1999). Finally, national cultural characteristics can play a part in the willingness of individuals to share knowledge for the good of the larger, extended organization at the expense of local objectives. Cultural backgrounds can affect team dynamics. For example, Americans place great value on individualism and independent action. Both of these traits may make it more difficult for Americans to understand how best to collaborate with team members who have social norms that put the group or collective good ahead of personal gain (Duarte & Snyder, 1999; Hofstede, 1997). Cultural characteristics will influence how individual team members conceive of the boundaries between themselves and others within the company, as well as those between units of the company. Individual Team Member Considerations

In addition to the situational or structural issues identified above, individual team member characteristics will also impact the degree to which team members experience internal dissonance between their roles in the local and global communities. Many factors contribute to an individual’s organizational identity (Dutton, Dukerich & Harquail, 1994). If team members have lived their entire lives within a homogeneous community and plan to live the rest of their lives there, they will have a greater tendency to look at the world through local eyes. That perspective is often tempered by the diversity of the community and/ or travel. Learning multiple languages also helps to develop a more global perspective, as well as, prior experiences or involvement in other global teams.’ Occupational identity can also help to broaden one’s perspective beyond the local site. Engineers, for example, tend to view their colleagues to be others within their profession whether or not they reside at their specific workplace (Schein, 1996; Bloor & Dawson, 1994). As a result, common educational backgrounds and professional jargon can moderate language or national cultural differences. Furthermore, professionals enjoy being recognized by their technical peers for their expertise and often relish the opportunity to be interacting with those peers in making a global change. This intrinsic recognition can be as fulfilling as formal rewards, as one engineer commented, “It’s more than the monetary rewards, it’s the intangible rewards - praise, expertise, and authority.” Long-term career aspirations and international assignments also affect an individual’s view of the value of sharing their knowledge and expertise outside

JANICE A. KLEIN AND BETTY J. BARREi’IT

their local operation. Multinationals have long recognized the importance of global assignments in shaping the perspectives of future leaders (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1992; Doz & Prahalad, 1981). It is rarer, however, to see international assignments for knowledge sharing. The combination of both, however, can promote broader perspectives for those that rotate, as well as the individuals they interact with at a local site. Team Considerations Substantial literature exists on the key factors that lead to high performance globally dispersed teams (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Hackman, 1987; Townsend & DeMarie et al., 1998). Our focus here is on those factors that influence a team member’s propensity to openly share their knowledge and expertise within the team and then convey those discussions and lessons learned back to the local site. As we have seen, individual members of a globally dispersed team are often left to balance local interests with global team objectives that are seldom perfectly aligned. Given this inevitable situation, what can teams do to lessen the impact of conflicting priorities? One might argue that trust and open dialogue among team members should mitigate conflicting local priorities but “swift trust” (Meyerson, Weick & Kramer, 1996) can quickly become “fleeting trust” when individual team member’s goals, milestones and performance appraisals are based on conflicting criteria. Recognition that there is the potential for future interaction beyond the current team activities may also create some “referent trust,” but it will probably be insufficient to overcome the short-term priorities associated with individual team member interests. Since time and resources are constraining commodities, team members will be reluctant to devote energy to any team they perceive to be a waste of their time, particularly if it is viewed as taking valuable time away from local priorities. The establishment and adherence to team norms and protocols developed to facilitate intt$ractions, meetings, and team tasks will alleviate some of the frustration, but when many team members are already stretched to the limit with their local job duties, the global team is viewed as just an add on. Even if involvement in the global team is aligned with local objectives, being a member of a globally dispersed team takes additional time on several fronts. Coordination of virtual team meetings, advanced lead times for communications, learning new collaborative technologies, and overcoming cultural and/or language barriers all require investments of additional time. But rather than recognizing the additional time required, there is often a tendency to assign

One Foot in a Global Team, One Foot at the Local Site

117

people to multiple global teams since virtuality is billed as an opportunity for reducing travel needs and increasing productivity (Benson-Armer & Hsieh, 1997). Team members need to be confident that people with the proper skills are part of the team. Continual churning of team members only aggravates this concern, since remaining team members typically have to pick up the work of departing team members until replacements have been identified. Then, it takes added time to bring new team members up to speed. As one team member lamented, “It takes a long time to name successors sometimes weeks or months at other plants, and there is no one to call in or to be at the meetings. Then we must bring the [new] person up to speed.” Having multiple team members at a location may help to offset some of the perceived additional work. For example, team members could represent each other at team meetings. In addition, having multiple members who can help to communicate the local context may increase the probability that the other team members recognize the constraints a particular remote site might be facing. (Cramton, 1999; Hinds, 1999).

A TOTAL SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE As can be seen from the above discussion, there is a need to take a total system perspective in considering the elements that lead to effective globally dispersed teams. All to often, the research has focused on team structures, dynamics and communication processes -the center box of Fig. 3. As we have seen, however, the inputs from a global and local perspective have a tremendous impact on how well the team functions and directly influence team members’ perceptions of theit’task and fellow team members. Furthermore, the alignment between the global and local perspectives impacts the degree to which team members are able to reconcile their roles both within the team and in their home location. One final aspect of the system is the feedback of team outputs back to the global and local levels. When evaluating the effectiveness of global teams we tend to focus on the tangible output. If the team is successful, its product should become an integral part of the coordinating unit’s strategies and/or practices. There is another and maybe even more important intangible product in the form of individual and organizational learning (Cutcher-Gershenfeld et al., 1998; Nonoka & Takeuchi, 1995; Senge, 1990). For globally dispersed teams, one of the key “products” is shared knowledge and expertise. As teams tackle shared tasks and challenges, they create a base of shared knowledge and experience which in its most positive form leads to increased understanding of cultures, shared appreciation of values, and a network or community of practitioners

1 Local cultuFdpriorities

Coordinating unit strategy/practice% *

Fig.

*

r team processes

StruCtU~

GIobaI Team

I

. &tangibles [team members] - shared knowledge base - new perspectives - new relationships/network

. Tangible output - common product/processes

3. A SystemicView of the Global Local Relationship.

c

One Foot in a Global Team, One Foot at the Local Site

119

within the company that serves as an ongoing source of information and support (Lipnack & Stamps, 1997; Mohrman, Cohen & Mohrman, 1995). For many team members, the intangible product is one of the benefits of participating in a globally dispersed team. One engineer described his feelings in this way, “The exposure to different plants is good, and personally, it’s a good opportunity to get an opportunity to learn from different cultures. I learn different concepts, processes, people, and share this information with peers.” One would hope that team members do, indeed, share their new knowledge with their peers at their home location, as this engineer does. But the degree to which team members openly share or transfer their new perspectives is dependent on how their peers and direct supervisors receive those new perspectives. Those new relationships and networks provide team members with access to information and influence outside their local operation. Coworkers at the local site can perceive these networks either as leverage or a threat. In our research, we observed both cases. Not surprisingly, these relationships and networks tend to be valued more when there is alignment between local and global priorities or where locals use this new information to better align their local objectives to global priorities.

RECONCILING GLOBAL AND LOCAL PRIORITIES Proponents of the integrated network model for multinational corporations argue that it is possible to have a management process that can resolve the diversity of interests and integrate responsibilities (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1992). The i$eal situation is to align goals and objectives throughout the global organization, but as global leaders have concluded, there are internal contradictions with which people must learn to deal. As the CEO of ABB noted, ABB is an organization with three internal big and small, and radically decentralized 1991, p. 101).

contradictions. with centralized

We want to be global and local, reporting and control (Taylor,

The very nature of globally dispersed teams accentuates the contradictions between global and local needs. Individuals from small local units who are accountable to decentralized units are being asked to develop centralized practices and policies. Being conscious of the different cultures and priorities can mitigate some of these needs, but the classic tension between integration and differentiation (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967) will always exist.

JANICE A. KLEIN AND BETTY J. BARRETT

Global Systems to Manage the Global Network Many multinational companies have turned to a matrix organization to manage their global businesses. One might argue that a similar approach might be called for with globally dispersed teams where team members have accountability to two supervisors, one at their local site, and the other at the coordinating unit. The difficulty is that globally dispersed teams are typically of short duration and many team members are involved with multiple teams at any one point in time. This also complicates efforts to incorporate global team activities into individual performance appraisals. Our research, however, clearly indicates a need to better inform and involve local supervisors (both at the remote sites and at the coordinating unit) who set local team member priorities in the global team process. Every level of the management hierarchy needs to be measured on their support of global cooperation and the development of people who participate in globally dispersed teams. Global team members, themselves, can also take steps to better manage the differing expectations at a global and local level. Earlier research on product development teams and other types of co-located teams has shown that managing the boundaries around the team is critical to team success (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Fisher & Fisher, 1998). Global dispersion heightens this need as team members must learn to manage the team’s multiple constituencies. Team leaders play a pivotal role in helping to bridge the boundaries. As one team leader put it, “I drive, facilitate, and support the team and liaison across the company structure.” In so doing, team leaders must recognize the various stakeholders involved and balance each of their needs. For example, team leaders know that team members have competing demands for their time and must be “reminded” to keep on track with team activities. Team leaders must also develop a perspective that allows them to see the work for the team as part of a global strategy, even if it means a personal struggle with the fact that what is good for the entire organization might not benefit their home location. To ease this tension, it is helpful to have team leaders who are recognized as senior individual contributors or managers to gain credibility with team members, as well as local and global management (Distefano, 2000). Local Innovation within Global Processes One of the main concerns many team members raise is a lack of recognition of the need for local adaptation of global standards to meet local cultural needs. As a result, local team members perceive they are being placed in an untenable

One Foot in a Global Team, One Foot at the Local Site

121

position of having to “sell” the output of their team deliberations back to their local site. This is similar to the tension between the desires to empower employees while assuring they follow standard work practices within a factory to reduce process variation (Klein, 1991). Here, the same issues are being played out on a larger scale between plants. As one manager noted, The problem is that globalization should not equal standardization. What you really want is local practice within global processes plus a process to share local best practices to continually improve the global processes. You should allow for certain variation between groups as long as there is the discipline of using global processes.

the surface, this sounds like “having your cake and eating it to” but the issue comes down to the underlying assumptions around what global processes mean. In order for there to be continuous improvement, there must be local innovation. Hence, the discussion needs to switch to the criteria under which local innovation should occur. In earlier research on defining the boundaries for autonomy of co-located self-directed work teams, the criteria was task interdependence, or how tightly coupled two activities had to be to optimize product quality and process effectiveness. In globally dispersed teams, task interdependence can be thought of in terms of product and/or process commonality, as shown in Fig. 4. Where multiple locations produce identical or On

Product/Process Commonality Identical Unique Independent l

Coordination in Decision Making

Centralized/ Collaborative (adapted from Klein, 199 1) Fig. 4. Local Innovation Within Global Processes.

122

JANICE A. KLEIN

AND BETTY

J. BARRJ3l-T

similar products, sharing and implementing global processes improves both local and global effectiveness. Even if the products are different but the technology is similar, there are gains to be made in communizing processes. Where global processes are required, the determination of those processes can be made either by a centralized group at headquarters or through collaboration in a globally dispersed team. One might assume that collaboration is the preferred method but there may be times, as with empowerment of the workforce, that top down forcing of decision making is preferred by all parties. (Klein, 2000; Walton, Cutcher-Gershenfeld & McKersie, 1994) This is especially true when a global process runs counter to the wishes of the local stakeholders. In this situation, the global team members may very well prefer having someone other than themselves responsible for the development of the global process. If there is little commonality between product or processes, coordinating decision making is a waste of resources, both in terms of people and time. In these cases, local autonomy is possible and, most likely, more efficient. What is needed, however, is a process to share the logic behind the innovation. There may be knowledge that is applicable in other settings but the context must be thoroughly understood. [Plant site] has implemented American best practices without understanding the context of the solution. The result was less successwith the best practice because in reality [the plant] was trying to solve a different problem (Winn, 2000).

CONCLUSION In many respects, distributed teams are a mini-United Nations coming together to find a common ground among competing interests. What makes their task more interesting is that they spend the vast majority of their time interacting on a daily basis with their local constituents and only spend a small fraction of their workday immersed in this multi-cultural, global environment. As a result, they have one foot in the global team while the other foot remains planted at the local site. As we have shown, these are often two very different worlds with conflicting agendas. Attempts to align global and local objectives and priorities can help to ease the inevitable tensions. In their journey, team members need to remember that during their team meetings and through the networks they develop, they will likely gain access to information and knowledge that supervisors and co-workers may not have. Their mental models of the world will change, but the people they interact with on a daily basis will not share that experience. Employees who return from international assignments often report similar difficulties but their co-workers

One

Foot

in a Global

Team, One Foot at the Local Site

123

and supervisors typically expect changes, since they have been gone for some period of time. Globally dispersed team members do not even have to be gone to have experienced an expanded view of operational processes or company horizons. They return to their work area after a teleconference and see things differently. Their situation can be made more difficult, because what they have learned may be difficult to explain and may be something that their peers and supervisors do not want to hear. At this critical moment, organizations that have aligned their strategic goals across levels and understand the power that is created in global collaboration will increase their chances of success because team members will have both feet planted firmly in congruent worlds.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This chapter is based upon research conducted as part of the MIT-Visteon Virtual Teams Project. We would like to thank participants of the MIT-Visteon Forum on Globally Dispersed Teams and other members of the research team for their input and feedback. A special thanks to Bill Hanson, Michael O’Leary and Julie Rennecker for their comments on early drafts of the chapter. In addition this chapter benefits from multiple research projects on-going at MIT by a group of graduate students led by the first author. The bulk of the quotes throughout the chapter come from interviews with and observations of members of five globally dispersed teams in an automotive components supplier (Barrett, 2000). The first author also benefited from involvement and interviews conducted under the auspices of the USC/CEO study on “Managing Technical Excellence.”

REFERENCES Ancona,

D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634-665. Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1992). Tramnational managemenf: Text, cases, and readings in cross-border management. Boston: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Barrett, B. (2000). Factors inj4uencing the efictiveness of globally dispersed teams. (Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 2000). Benson-Armer, R., & Hsieh, T. (1997). Teamwork across time and space. The McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 19-27. Bloor, G., & Dawson, I? (1994). Understanding professional culture in organizational context, Organization Studies, 15(2), 275-295. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239-29 1. Cramton, C. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3).

124

JANICE A. KLEIN

AND BETN

J. BARRETT

Crandall, F. N., & Wallace, M. J. (1998). Work and rewards in the virtual workplace: A “New Deal” for organizations and employees. New York, AMACOM. Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J., Nitta, M., Barrett, B., Belhedi, N., Chow, S., Inaba, T., Ishino, I., Lin, W., Mothersell, W., Plthe, J., Ramanand, S., Strolle, M. E., & Wheaton, A. C. (1998). Knowledge-driven

work:

Llnexpected

lessons&m

Japanese

and U.S. work practices.

New

York, Oxford University Press. Distefano, J. (2000). An analysis of melt/coat process clubs at Eastman Kodak Company. MIT System Design and Management Program Thesis. Doz, Y. L., & Prahalad, C. K. (1981). Headquarters influence and strategic control in MNCs. Sloan Management Review, 23(l), 15-29. Duarte, D. L., & Snyder, N. T. (1999). Mastering virtual teams. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., 8t Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39,239-263. Fisher, K., & Fisher, M. D. (1998). Distributed minds: Achieving high performance through the collective intelligence of knowledge work teams. New York: American Management Association. Gast, A. (2000). Managing innovation development acmss borders in the multinational jirm: the role and eflectiveness of coordinating units. (Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Goodman, l? S., & Darr, E. D. (1996). Exchanging best practices through computer-aided systems. The Academy

of Management

Executive,

10(2),

7-20.

Guzzo, R. A., t Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47,307-338. Guzzo, R. A., & Noonan, K. A. (1994). Human resources practices as communications and the psychological contract. Human Resource Management, 33(3), 447463. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In: J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall. Handy, C. (1995). Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review, (May/June), 40-50. Hinds, P. (1999). Perspective taking among distributed workers: The effect of distance on shared mental models of work. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: Znternational differences in work-related values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY, McGrawHill. Hollingshead, A. B., & McGrath, J. E. (1995). Computer-assisted groups: A critical review of the empirical research. In: R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations (pp. 46-78). San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. 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.

Kets de Vries, M. with Florent-Treaty, E. (1999). The new global leaders. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Klein, J. A. (1991). Re-Examination of autonomy in light of new manufacturing practices. Human Relations, 44(l), 21-38.

One Foot in a Global Team, One Foot at the Local Site Klein,

125

J. A. (2002). Changing relations between supervisors and employees: From deal making to strategic negotiations. Negotiations and change: From the workplace to society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology. New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Lucas, W. (2000). Personal communication. McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., Gruenfeld, D. H., Hollingshead, A. B., & Connor, K. M. (1993). Groups, tasks, and technology: The effects of experience and change. Small Group Research, 24(3), 406-420. Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M., (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In: R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (J?ds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (pp. 166194), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. J., & Mohrman, A. M. Jr. (1995). Designing team-based organizations: Newform.rfor knowledge work. San Francisco, CA., Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Peiia-Mora, F., Hussein, K., Vadhavkar, S., & Benjamin, K. (1999). CAIRO: A concurrent engineering environment for virtual design teams. MIT Intelligent Engineering Systems Laboratory paper (submitted to Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering). Prodonoff, V. Jr. (1999). Management of globally dispersed teams: A case study in the automobile industry. MIT Management of Technology Thesis. Rennecker, J. (2001). The myth of spontaneous connection: An ethnographic study of a geographically dispersed team in the automotive industry. (Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001). Schein, E. H. (1996). Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, (Fall), P-20. Senge, F? (1990). Thejfth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency. Snell, S. A., Snow, C. C., Davison, S. C. Davison, & Hambrick, D. C. (1998). Designing and supporting transnational teams: The human resource agenda. Human Resource Management 1998,37(2), 147-158. Taylor, W. (1991). The logic of global business: An interview with ABB’s Percey Barnevik. Harvard Business Review. Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, D. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive, Z2(3), 17-30. Walton, R. E., Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1994). Strategic negotiations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 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. Winn, D. (2000). Best practices of high technology globally dispersed teams. MIT Sloan Fellows thesis. Yoon, J., & Lim, J. C. (1999). Organizational support in the workplace: The case of Korea Hospital employees. Human Relations, 52(7), 923-935.

THE EFFECTS OF DEMOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY AND VIRTUAL WORK ENVIRONMENTS ON KNOWLEDGE PROCESSING IN TEAMS Anita D. Bhappu, Mary Zellmer-Bruhn and Vikas Anand ABSTRACT Work teams have gained increasing importance as businesses shift to knowledge-based organizational structures. At the same time, advances in information technology have facilitated this change by enabling virtual work environments. To add to this complexity, the increasing demographic diversity of workers is coinciding with the rise in virtual and knowledgebased work environments. Therefore, it is critical that we understand the impact of these changes as they coincide in organizations today. One of the extolled virtues of work teams is their potential to combine the’ unique knowledge held by individual workers, integrating these knowledge resources to bear on productive tasks. To effectively utilize their distributed knowledge, work teams have to per&or-m three basic knowledge-processing activities: (a) knowledge acquisition; (b) knowledge integration; and (c) knowledge creation. However work teams often have dificulty processing their distributed knowledge. The ability of team members, or lack thereof to work effectively with each other is usually the problem.

Virtual Teams, Volume 8, pages 149-165. Copyright Q 2001 by Ekevier Science Ltd. AU rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISBN: 0-7623-0843-S 149

ANITA

D. BHAPPU,

MARY

ZELLMER-BRUHN

AND VIKAS

ANAND

The increasing demographic diversity of workers presents similar challenges for organizations. Demographically diverse workers have more unique knowledge, leading to increased knowledge differentiation in work teams. A work team that has high knowledge diferentiation is one whose members possess diflerent expertise. The unique knowledge held by individual team members effectively enlarges a work team’s pool of knowledge resources. Howeven the increasing demographic diversity of workers often results in work teams having more dificulty processing their distributed knowledge because team members are not able to work effectively with different others. That being the case, the potential for demographically diverse work teams to more efectively peifonn productive tasks is lost. We realize that demographically diverse work teams are a special (and important) case of teams in that they are both high on diflerentiated knowledge and high on the potential for conjict and other process losses. However; with an increasingly global marketplace, this special case is quickly becoming common place. Therefore, it is critical that we find ways to help demographically diverse work teams limit their process losses and realize their fill potential. Virtual work environments only heighten the need for demographically diverse work teams to minimize their process losses. Team members are often separated by both geographic space ana’ time, which makes it even more challenging for them to work effectively with each other In such environments, team members are often isolated from one another andjnd it dificult to feel a part of their team. Interestingly, computer-mediated communication has been shown to enhance team per$ormance by helping team members communicate more efectively with each other In fact, empirical work by Bhappu, Grtjjith, and Northcraft (1997) suggests that computer-mediated communication can actually help demographically diverse work teams process their distributed knowledge more eflectively. In this chapter we will discuss the effects of demographic diversity and virtual work environments on knowledge processing in teams. More specifically, we will describe when computer-mediated communication is likely to enhance knowledge processing in demographically diverse work teams and when it is not, In doing so, we hope to provide both workers and managers with a set of guidelines on how to best navigate these organizational changes. Work teams have gained increasing importance as businesses shift to knowledge-based organizational structures. At the same time, advances in

The Eflects of Demographic

Diversity and Virtual Work Environments

151

information technology have facilitated this change by enabling virtual work environments. To add to this complexity, the increasing demographic diversity of workers is coinciding with the rise in virtual and knowledge-based work environments. Therefore, it is critical that we understand the impact of these changes as they coincide in organizations today. ()ne of the extolled virtues of work teams is their potential to combine the unique knowledge held by individual workers to bear on productive tasks. To effectively utilize their distributed knowledge, work teams have to perform three basic knowledge-processing activities: (a) knowledge acquisition; (b) knowledge integration; and (c) knowledge creation. However, work teams often have difficulty processing their distributed knowledge. So the challenge, then, is to enable work teams to productively process their knowledge, overcoming process losses such as conflict, which result from their interactions or lack thereof. The increasing demographic diversity of workers presents challenges and opportunities for organizations. Demographically diverse workers, coming from different backgrounds, have unique knowledge. As a result, when demographically diverse workers combine to form a work team, the work team has high knowledge differentiation. The unique knowledge held by individual team members effectively enlarges the work team’s pool of usable knowledge resources. As such, demographic diversity has a positive role in work teams. However, the increasing demographic diversity of workers often results in work teams having more difficulty processing their distributed knowledge because team members are not able to work effectively with different others (Clark, Anand & Roberson, 2000). That being the case, the potential for higher performance in demographically diverse work teams because of their larger pool df knowledge resources is lost. Demographically diverse work teams are a special (and important) case of teams in that they are both high on differentiated knowledge and high on the potential for conflict and other process losses. However, within an increasingly global marketplace, this special case is quickly becoming commonplace (Thomas & Ely, 1996). Therefore, it is critical that we find ways to help demographically diverse work teams limit their process losses and realize their full potential to effectively process their knowledge resources. Virtual work environments open up additional opportunities to bring together individuals in work teams, and therefore knowledge, from geographically dispersed locations. While opening up opportunities to combine more distributed and differentiated knowledge, virtual work environments only heighten the need for demographically diverse work teams to minimize their process losses. In virtual work environments, team members are often

ANITA

D. BHAPPU,

MARY

ZELLMER-BRUHN

AND VIKAS

ANAND

separated by both geographic space and time, which makes it even more challenging for them to work effectively with each other. In such environments, team members are often isolated from one another and find it difficult to feel a part of their team. When team members do not meet face-to-face, it is difficult to develop trust. This suggests that demographically diverse work teams may be hindered by virtual interaction. Yet despite being a potential barrier for team effectiveness, virtual work environments have been shown to enhance team performance by encouraging more equal participation among team members and helping team members exchange their distributed knowledge more effectively (Bhappu, Griffith & Northcraft, 1997). In this chapter, we specifically address the effects of demogral&ic diversity and virtual work environments on knowledge processing in teams. Virtual work environments are increasingly being used to bring together demographically diverse organizational members on important tasks. Both virtual work environments and demographic diversity have the potential to improve organizational effectiveness, however, they also pose challenges to knowledge processing in work teams. In this chapter, we will describe when virtual work environments are likely to enhance knowledge processing in demographically diverse work teams and when they are not. In doing so, we hope to provide both workers and managers with a set of guidelines on how to best navigate these organizational changes. First, we describe and explain what we mean by knowledge and knowledge processes. Next, we discuss how demographic diversity affects knowledge processing. Finally, we examine how virtual work environments compound or facilitate the impact of demographic diversity on knowledge processing.

KNOWLEDGE AND KNOWLEDGE PROCESSES Although knowledge is held primarily by individuals (Spender & Grant, 1996), the ability to integrate individual knowledge to bear on productive tasks is a strategic resource of organizations (Grant, 1996). As such, organizational scholars are very interested in the role of knowledge in organizations. However, there is currently little consensus among these scholars on a precise definition of knowledge in organizations (Anand, Skilton & Keats, 1999); a variety of definitions abound. For the purposes of this chapter, we define knowledge inclusively as information, skills, expertise, beliefs, competencies, and perspectives that can be brought to bear on an activity being performed by the individual (Anand et al., 2000).

me Effects of Demographic Diversity and virtual Work Environments

153

Types of Knowledge

The above definition of knowledge is very broad so it is convenient to categorize knowledge as being explicit and tacit. Explicit knowledge is that which can be easily codified and shared. Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, encompasses individual attributes (e.g. expertise, judgment, values, etc.) that are difficult to represent in symbols and transfer (Nom&a & Takeuchi, 1995; Polanyi, 1958). In addition to the explicit - tacit categorization, knowledge can also be classified as being technical or general (Anand et al., 2000). Technical kpowledge pertains to specific functional areas or organizational domains (Demsetz, 1991; Dougherty, 1992; Leonard-Barton, 1992). Therefore, tacit or explicit knowledge related to marketing and accounting or knowledge about a specific production process are examples of technical knowledge. However, some knowledge is unrelated to specific organizational domains and is termed general knowledge. Tacit knowledge, such as cultural values, individual perceptions and mental models, or explicit knowledge, such as an organization’s mission statement, are a few examples of general knowledge that transcends specific organizational functions. The twin dimensions of explicit-tacit and technical-general allow us to categorize the knowledge that is used by work teams into four distinct types. The four types are shown in Fig. 1, along with illustrative examples of each typeOne reason for the existence of organizations is their ability to manage knowledge more effectively than a collection of unlinked entities (as would occur in a perfectly free market) (Kogut & Zander, 1992). Work teams are one of themost effective knowledge management tools available to organizations because they help bring together knowledge that is distributed among individuals within an organization. To effectively manage the organization’s knowledge, work teams must perform three basic activities: (a) knowledge acquisition; (b) knowledge integration; and (c) knowledge creation. Together, these activities constitute knowledge processing in work teams. Knowledge Acquisition

Knowledge acquisition occurs when work teams recognize the importance of relevant new knowledge in their environment, are able to acquire this knowledge, and use it to perform their team task. A work team’s ability to effectively acquire relevant new knowledge is dependent on its absorptive capacity, which is prior related knowledge held by individual team members

154

ANITA

D. BHAPPU,

MARY

ZELLMER-BRUHN

AND VIKAS

ANAND

(Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). “Prior related knowledge confers an ability to recognize the value of new information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends” (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990, p. 128). Consider, for instance, a new development in biogenetics that has the potential to benefit an R&D team in the biotechnology industry. In order for the R&D team to acquire knowledge about this new development, it must first recognize that this knowledge is valuable. This is possible only if the R&D team has some prior knowledge that allows it to assessthe potential of this new development. Furthermore, once the importance of this new development has been assessed, the R&D team will only be able to use this new development if it has sufficient absorptive capacity to understand the basics- of the new development and is capable of adapting this knowledge to its tasks. Another good example is Sony. Sony abandoned efforts to develop digital technologies in the late seventies because it felt that it was too far behind the competition. Consequently, as digital technologies started impacting Sony’s core industries in the mid-eighties, it had to spend significant resources to develop acceptable digital technologies because it lacked the necessary absorptive capacity in the

Explicit Knowledge

Exdicit-Technical Software

manual, finance

reports, staodard

operating

procedures,

Tacit Knowledge

ExDlicit-General

statement,

mission

team goals, etc.

etc.

Tacit-Technical

Tacit-General

Web design skills, marketing expertise,

Organizational

etc.

Values, beliefs, ibrpresonal

skills,

General Knowledge Fig.

1.

Types of Knowledge.

etc.

m Effects of Demographic Diversity and virtual WorkEnvironments

155

field (Nathan, 1999). Therefore, the ability of a work team to acquire and utilize knowledge that is being generated in the environment varies with its expertise. Knowledge Integration

Grant (1996) suggests that knowledge integration is the most important activity of knowledge processing in organizations. Knowledge integration is the process by which work teams combine the distributed knowledge of their members to form a tangible output (c.f. Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). Thus, when a product development team effectively combines the knowledge of a niarketing executive, a production executive, and a design specialist, to develop a new product, it has integrated knowledge. To achieve unity of effort, the distributed knowledge of individual team members must be deployed in performing the team task. The manner in which work teams bring together distributed knowledge depends on the nature of the knowledge being integrated. Thus, when a work team is routinely integrating the same knowledge day in and day out, then standard operating procedures and routines of work developed over time are adequate to perform knowledge integration satisfactorily (Adler, Goldoftas & Levine, 1999; Nelson &Winter, 1982; Weick & Roberts, 1993). An example of this would be a work team charged with the production of an automobile subassembly. However, when work teams are required to integrate large amounts of tacit knowledge on a non-routine basis, they will need to use more personal and demanding integration mechanisms that involve the use of large amounts of face-to-face interaction. An example of this would be the board of directors that meets regularly to review and monitor key strategic decisions. The effectiveness of knowledge integration capabilities can be assessed using three criteria: (a) efficiency; (b) scope; and (c) flexibility (Grant, 1996a). Efficiency reflects “the extent to which the integration capability accesses the specialist knowledge held by individual members” (Grant 1996, p. 380). Efficient integration mechanisms access more knowledge from specialists than inefficient ones. Scope reflects the number of domains from which the work team accesses knowledge during the integration process. Thus, a product development team that utilizes knowledge from the marketing, design, production, finance, and materials domains has greater scope of integration than a work team that merely utilizes knowledge pertaining to the production and design domains. Flexibility reflects the work team’s abilities to access new domains or reconfigure the use of existing domains during the integration process. For instance, a top management team that consistently utilizes

156

ANITA

D. BHAPPU,

MARY

ZELLMER-BRUHN

AND VIKAS

ANAND

knowledge from production and marketing domains while making strategic decisions exhibits less flexibility than a work team that occasionally changes the domains of knowledge that it examines while making strategic decisions. Knowledge Creation

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) point out that work teams are the instruments through which organizations create new knowledge. Knowledge creation occurs in five different stages. In the first stage, different individuals in the work team share their tacit technical knowledge with each other. Over a period of time, interacting individuals generate new ideas from the interplay of their different tacit knowledge stocks. They develop a shared mental model about what these ideas mean to the organization. In the second stage, these ideas and concepts are transformed into explicit concepts (i.e. there is a transformation from tacit to explicit knowledge). In the third stage, these explicit concepts are tested for their validity. Once validated, they are transformed into an end product in the fourth stage. Finally, once the knowledge has been successfully converted into an end product, it must be accepted as legitimate throughout the organization. Therefore, the key task of the work team during this stage is to sell the use of the knowledge to other organizational units (Dougherty & Hardy, 1996).

DEMOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY AND KNOWLEDGE PROCESSING IN WORK TEAMS A demographically diverse work team typically consists of individuals who vary in age, race, gender, and socio-economic backgrounds. Demographic diversity in work teams is especially important because individuals from different backgrounds are likely to possess very different world-views on key issues (Cox, 1993). For instance, an older individual is more likely to have been raised during times of economic hardship, which may shape his or her views on issues such as the handling of surplus resources available to the work team (Clark et al., 2000). Similarly, individuals from different races tend to have mutually exclusive social networks that have different methods of validating knowledge, causing these individuals to have unique perspectives on key issues (Lawrence, 1997; Pfeffer, 1983). Demographic Diversity and Knowledge Acquisition

If there is equal opportunity for demographically diverse individuals in an organization, demographic diversity will be associated differences in general

The Effects of Demographic Diversity and virtual Work Environments

157

knowledge, as outlined above, rather than differences in technical knowledge. However, demographic diversity has often been associated with differences in technical knowledge because individuals often self select or only have the opportunity to work in technical functions that employ people similar to them (e.g. women and secretarial work). This process is further strengthened by selection processes that are dependent on employee referrals; since social ties are stronger between similar individuals, individuals referred for employment tend to be demographically similar to existing workers in an organization (Granovetter, 1985). When individuals with specific demographic characteristics dominate particular technical functions in an organization, a demographically diverse w&k team is likely to have knowledge in different technical domains. Under these conditions, a demographically diverse work team has a larger knowledge base and, therefore, a larger absorptive capacity. Hence, demographically diverse work teams are likely to have superior knowledge acquisition abilities. But as Cox (1993) points out, individuals in demographically diverse work teams are less likely to socialize and be familiar with each other. Consequently, individuals in demographically diverse work teams are less likely to interact with each other outside their team task. In such situations, demographically diverse team members are less likely to know the nuances and details of each other’s expertise (Anand et al., 2000; Anand, Manz & Glick, 1998), which will negatively impact their team’s ability to acquire new knowledge in spite of its larger absorptive capacity. When individuals are aware of each other’s expertise and share similar mental models (this is likely to occur in demographically homogenous work teams), they are better able to leverage their absorptive capacities (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). In such work teams, members not only acquire knowledge in their own domains of expertise but they also recognize and acquire knowledge that could benefit team members who are experts in other domains (Huber, 1991). Hence, a homogenous work team is likely to obtain synergies during the acquisition process. As such, we propose that: Proposition

1: Demographically diverse work teams exhibit lower rates of knowledge acquisition than homogenous work teams.

In the case of knowledge acquisition, explicit knowledge is more readily acquired than tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). However, the effect of demographic diversity on knowledge acquisition will affect the acquisition of both kinds of knowledge equally. As such, we have chosen not to differentiate between explicit and tacit knowledge while developing our arguments.

158

ANITA

D. BHAPPU,

MARY

ZELLMER-BRUHN

AND VIKAS

ANAND

Demographic Diversity and Knowledge Integration In order to integrate knowledge in a work team, team members must be able to develop an elementary understanding of the knowledge held by other members. They must be able to assess how the knowledge of other members relates to their own (Grant, 1996). This requires them to develop some common level of understanding about the knowledge possessed by the group as a whole. This common level of understanding is easily achieved when the knowledge being integrated is explicit because explicit knowledge can be easily documented. Discussion can also aid in quickly developing a common understanding of the knowledge being integrated. Thus, at first glance, it would appear that when explicit knowledge is being integrated, demographic diversity has no effect on the effectiveness of integration. However, Gruenfeld, Mannix, Williams and Neale (1996) have shown that unique knowledge held by individual team members in demographically diverse work teams is not exchanged during initial team interactions, Because some team members are less likely to share relevant knowledge with the team, such knowledge cannot be integrated into the team’s task. Consequently, the eficiency of explicit knowledge integration is reduced in work teams with demographically diverse members. The integration of tacit knowledge, however, is a completely different and much more complex situation. Homogenous work teams, whose members are demographically similar, are likely to possess a commonality of vocabulary, conceptual knowledge, and experience (Cox, 1993; Milliken, 1996). This commonality in understanding allows homogenous work teams to integrate larger amounts of the knowledge possessed by their members (i.e. the work teams exhibit high efficiency in their integration processes). It also allows them to integrate knowledge emanating from a large number of domains (i.e. work teams have a high scope of integration) (Anand et al., 2000; Bechky, 1999; Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2000). Thus, work teams that are not demographically diverse are likely to exhibit higher levels of efficiency and scope in their knowledge integration abilities. In contrast, demographically diverse work teams are likely to exhibit higher flexibility of integration. When team members are demographically similar to each other, they are likely to think alike and, as a whole, the work team is less capable of recognizing the need for integrating existing knowledge in novel ways (c.f. Inkpen & Crossan, 1997; Grant, 1996; Sastry, 1997). For instance, when work teams have undifferentiated general knowledge, they are likely to adopt a single, common lens to view their world. As Miller (1993) and Janis (1972) have pointed out, this leads to an excessive “simplicity” and

The Effects of Demographic Diversity and virtual Work Environments

159

unidimensionality in the work team’s way of thinking, making it inertial to change efforts. However, when a work team is demographically diverse, its general knowledge is differentiated. Integration flexibility is enhanced because the presence of numerous perspectives allows the work team to examine problems, situations, and information through multiple lenses (Walsh, 1995). Based on the preceding arguments we propose that: Proposition 2a: Demographic diversity in work teams has a negative efect on the e@ciency of knowledge integration. ‘Proposition 2b: Demographic diversity in work teams has a negative effect on the scope of knowledge integration. Proposition

2c: Demographic diversity in work teams has a positive efect of knowledge integration.

on the flexibilio

Demographic Diversity and Knowledge Creation

Some facets of knowledge creation benefit from high levels of demographic diversity while others benefit from 10~ levels of demographic diversity. As such, there is an inverted U shaped relationship between demographic diversity and knowledge creation. Knowledge creation is enhanced at moderate levels of demographic diversity, and retarded at very high or very low levels of demographic diversity. LOW levels of demographic diversity benefit knowledge creation for two reasons. Fist, knowledge creation originates within an individual as a hunch or a new insight (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). However, for knowledge creation to be codplete, these individual insights need to be developed and validated by other team members through a process of “dialogue, discussion, experience sharing, and observation” (Nonaka 8~ Takeuchi, 1995, p. 3). This process is facilitated when team members share mental models at the general level - a condition more likely to occur at lower levels of demographic diversity (Anand et al., 1998). Second, demographically homogeneous work teams have higher levels of trust than demographically diverse work teams (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 1998). AS such, team members in homogenous work teams are more willing to help develop and test each other’s ideas - a key element of the knowledge creation process (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Consequently, a lack of demographic diversity facilitates a work team’s ability to create new knowledge. However, the differentiation in general knowledge, and especially tacit general knowledge, that results from demographic diversity is also very

160

ANITA D. BHAPPU, MARY ZELLMER-BRUHN AND VIKAS ANAND

important for the knowledge creation process. Knowledge creation requires that team members share their unique stocks of tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) and constantly re-examine problems, situations and information through multiple perspectives (Bazerman, 1995; Daft & Huber, 1984; Weick, 1995). In demographically homogenous work teams, knowledge creation is inhibited because team members do not possess the ‘requisite variety’ or breadth of tacit knowledge to create new knowledge. Hence, if a work team is demographically diverse, its knowledge creation ability is enhanced. Given the preceding discussion, we propose that: Proposition 3: There is an inverted U-shaped relationship between demographic diversity and knowledge creation in work teams. Knowledge creation is facilitated at moderate levels of demographic diversity and inhibited at very low or very high levels of demographic diversity.

VIRTUAL WORK ENVIRONMENTS, DEMOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY, AND KNOWLEDGE PROCESSES Virtual work environments enable individual team members to use technology to communicate with other team members who are not geographically co-located with them. In virtual work environments, team members clearly have less opportunity to interact socially and develop trust with team members who are not geographically co-located with them. They, therefore, are less likely to know the nuances and details of each other’s levels of expertise. At the same time, the demographic diversity of team members is less salient because there is a lack of demographically reinforcing visual and verbal cues in virtual work environments (Bhappu et al., 1997). Therefore, demographically diverse teams may find it easier to develop team cohesiveness and trust in virtual work environments. Also, the social distance between team members during virtual team interactions may actually facilitate the sharing of unique knowledge and honest opinions among team members. Virtual work environments can, therefore, alter the effect of demographic diversity on knowledge processes. As such, the use of virtual work environments moderates the influence of demographic diversity on knowledge processing in work teams. tirtual Work Environments and Knowledge Acquisition A key reason why demographic diversity inhibits knowledge acquisition is because team members are less likely to know about each other’s expertise. In

m Effects of Demographic Diversity and virtual Work Environments

161

the case of virtual work environments, there is even less opportunity for nontask related interaction among team members. Therefore, team members are less likely to know and understand the unique expertise of others in their team. In virtual work teams, knowledge acquisition occurs through independent actions by individual team members, with a reduced chance of any synergy among team members. Thus, even if a team member encounters knowledge that can be used by others in their team, he/she will probably not recognize the importance and relevance of such knowledge to the team, and will ignore it (Wegner, 1986). Thus, the negative effect of demographic diversity on knowledge acquisition in work teams is likely to be enhanced in virtual work environments. Moreover, if the encountered knowledge is tacit in nature - it is difficult to quantify and transfer - then the low media richness of computermediated communication will make it difficult for team members to transfer this new knowledge to others in their work team. Face-to-face communication is better suited for the acquisition of tacit knowledge. Given the preceding arguments, we propose that: Proposition 4: Virtual work environments will enhance the negative effect of demographic diversity on knowledge acquisition in work teams. This e$ect will be stronger in the case of tacit knowledge than in the case of explicit knowledge. Virtual Environments and Knowledge Integration

We have previously argued that demographic diversity increases the flexibility of knowledge integration while reducing its scope and efficiency in work teams. Scope and efficiency are reduced, because members in demographically diverse work teams are less likely to share knowledge that is idiosyncratically possessed by them (Gruenfeld et al., 1996). The effective sharing of unique knowledge in diverse work teams is inhibited by the tendency of team members to pay more attention to the viewpoints of others who are similar to them and to ignore the viewpoints of those who are different from them (Stasser, Stewart & Wittenbaum, 1994). Bhappu et al. (1997) found that this communication bias is less likely in virtual work environments; team members attend less to the demographic differences among them and focus primarily on the content of a given communication rather than its sender. The reduced saliency of demographic differences in virtual work environments facilitates the effective sharing of unique knowledge in diverse work teams, thereby improving the efficiency and scope of their knowledge integration. However, the advantages of virtual work environments that benefit the scope and efficiency of knowledge integration processes do not extend to the

162

ANITA

D. BHAPPU,

MARY

ZELLMER-BRUHN

AND VIKAS

ANAND

flexibility of knowledge integration. Teams that have high flexibility in their knowledge integration mechanisms are the ones that can reconfigure existing knowledge in new ways or rapidly identify new knowledge that can be integrated into their team task (Grant, 1996). In order to achieve this flexibility, work teams must possess multiple worldviews, be willing to debate issues and problems, and be willing to interpret information using these multiple perspectives (Daft & Weick, 1984; Weick, 1995). A work team’s ability to debate and examine multiple perspectives requires that its members engage in rich and iterative patterns of communication (Anand et al., 1998; Daft & Huber, 1987; Daft & Lengel, 1986; Daft & Weick, 1984). The use of virtual work environments severely restricts the ability of a work team to engage in such practices, thereby reducing the flexibility of its knowledge integration. As such, we propose that: Proposition

5a: Virtual work environments reduce the negative effect of demographic diversity on the scope and eficiency of knowledge integration in work teams.

Proposition

5b: Virtual work environments reduce the positive effect of

demographic teams.

diversity on the flexibility

of knowledge integration

in work

Virtual Work Environments and Knowledge Creation

In order for a work team to develop new knowledge, its members must extensively share and become aware of each other’s stocks of tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). This process occursthrough detailed and lengthy observation of experts performing their tasks or through apprenticeship (Anand et al., 2000; Nom&a & Takeuchi, 1995). In virtual work environments, the extensive sharing of tacit knowledge through observation and apprenticeship is practically impossible. However, in work teams that-have had face-to-face interactions for a period of time before moving to a virtual work environment, team members have had opportunity to familiarize themselves with each other’s tacit knowledge stocks. Therefore, in these hybrid work teams, the move to a virtual work environment will not significantly diminish their knowledge creation, especially if they intersperse virtual interactions with faceto-face interactions. As such, we propose that: Propositions work teams.

6a: Virtual work environments inhibit knowledge creation in

Effects of Demographic

m

Diversity

and

Virtual

Work

Environments

163

Proposition

6b: The ability of virtual work teams to create knowledge is enhanced if they have had prior face-to-face interactions and continue to supplement their virtual interactions with face-to-face interactions.

CONCLUDING REMARKS The increasing demographic diversity of workers and the rise in virtual work environments present both challenges and opportunities for organizations. When it comes to knowledge processing in work teams, it is vital to understand w&en demographic diversity and virtual work environments help and when they hurt the effectiveness of work teams. We hope that the propositions set forth in this chapter will serve as a set of guidelines for worker and managers. By gaining a better understanding of the interaction between demographic diversity and virtual work environments, both workers and managers should be better equipped to navigate these organizational changes.

REFERENCES Adler,

P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, l&43-68. Anand, V., Fugate, M., & Manz, C. C. (2000). Empowering work teams with knowledge. In: M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds), Advances in the Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams (Vol. 6). Anand, V., Manz, C. C., & Glick, W. H. (1998). An organizational memory approach to information management. Academy of Management Review, 23,796-809. Anand, V., Skilton, P. F, & Keats, B. W. (1999). Patterns of knowledge distribution in organizations. Paper presented at the Annual Academy of Management Meetings in Chicago, 1999. Bazennv, M. H. (1997). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. New York, NY John Wiley and Sons. Bechky, B. A. (1999). Creating shared meaning across occupational communities: An ethnographic study of a production floor. Proceedings of Academy of Management, Chicago. Bhappu, A. D., Griffith, T. L., & Northcraft, G. B. (1997). Media effects and communication bias in diverse groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 70, 199-205. Clark, M. A., Anand, V., & Roberson, L. (2000). Resolving meaning: Interpretation in diverse decision-making groups. Group Dynamics, $211-221. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152. Cox, T. N. (1993). Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Barrett Koehler. Daft, R. L., & Huber, G. P. (1987). How organizations learn: A communication perspective. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 5, l-36. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational informational requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32,554-571.

ANITA

D. BHAPPU,

MARY

ZELLMER-BRUHN

AND VIKAS

ANAND

Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Towards a model of organizations as interpretive systems. Academy of Management Review, 9.284-295. Demsetz, H. (1991). The theory of the firm revisited. In: 0. E. Williamson & S. G. Winter (Eds), The Nature of the Firm. New York, NY Oxford University Press. Dougherty, D. (1992). A practice-centered model of organizational renewal through product innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 13,11-93. Dougherty, D., & Hardy, C. (1996). Sustained product innovation in large, mature organizations: Overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1120-l 153. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91,48 l-5 10. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109-122. Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M. A. (1996). Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 1-15. Huber, G. P (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2.88-115. Inkpen, A. C., & Crossan, M. M. (1995). Believing is seeing: Joint ventures and organization learning. Journal of Management Studies, 32, 595-618. Janis, I. L. (1972). victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and juscoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Jassawalla, J. R., & Sash&al, H. C. (1998). An examination of collaboration in high-technology new product development processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, 237-254. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383-397. Lawrence, B. S. (1997). The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science, 8, l-22. Lawrence, I? R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and Envinmment. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111-125. Miller, D. (1993). The architecture of simplicity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 116-138. Nathan, J. (1999). Sony: i”ZtePrivate Life. New York, NY Houghton Mifflin. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press. ; Nom&a, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY Oxford University Press. Okhuysen, G. A., St Eisenhardt, K. M. (2000). Integrating knowledge in groups: How simple formal inventions help. Working paper. Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational demography. In: L. L. C ummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, Cl? JAI. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Sashy, M. A. (1997). Problems and paradoxes in a model of punctuated organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 237-215. Spender, J. C., & Grant, R. M. (1996). Knowledge and the lirnx Overview. Strategic Management Journal, I7,5-9.

The Effects

of Demographic

Diversity

and

Virtual

Work

Environments

165

Stasser, G. (1992). Information salience and the discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: A “thought experiment.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 156-181. Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, Cl. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology,

31,244-265.

Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74,79-90. Waller, M. J. (1999). The timing of adaptive group responses to nonroutine events. Academy of Management

Journal,

42, 127-137.

Walsh, J. I? (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6, 280-321. Wegner, D. M. (1986). Transactive Memory: A Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind. In: B. l Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds), Theories of Group Behavior. New York, NY SpringerVerlag. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. F. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357-381.

CROSS-FUNCTIONALTEAMSINA CONCURRENTENGINEERING ENVIRONMENT-PRINCIPLES, MODEL,ANDMETHODS Richard Durst and Dirk Kabel ABSTRACT Present research on Concurrent Engineering (CE) mainly focusses on technological aspects like information sharing, and common communication platforms, or coordination systems such as CE-Tools like CAD, CAM, DFA or QFD. In the European context, the implementation of Concurrent Engineering certainly involves changes of organizational management and peoples traditional way of work. For the success of Concurrent Engineering, organizational, managerial and human issues are very important. This chapter presents the results of a current research project that is being carried out at the Chair and Institute of Industrial Engineering and Ergonomics of the University of Technology in Aachen, Germany. It shows the results of a study about cross-functional teams in a Concurrent Engineering environment. Based on a multi-dimensional model of self directed work organization for teams in Concurrent Engineering, preconditions were generated to design and develop learning organizations which use Concurrent Engineering. Based on this team model for a

Virtual Teams, Volume 8, pages 167-214. Copyright 8 2001 by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISBN: 0-7623-0843-S 167

168

RICHARD DURST AND DIRK KABEL

learning organization in CE, requirements for soft skill qualification for team members were developed. In the core of the Concurrent Engineering Team research, there are three levels: individual issues, team issues and organizational issues. Individual issues focus on the diaerences among team members that may injluence the cooperation in the team (different specialization, different work departments, different values, diRerent socializations etc.). The team level issue focusses on the internal management of a CE team (goal system, distribution of tasks, sharing of team rules, interaction style, interpersonal relations, team leadership etc.). Finally, the organizational level can be regarded as a team-external support environment for team management (management, commitment and involvement, empowerment of the team leader etc.). The individual and organizational levels injluence the team level factors. But cross-functional organization eflectiveness in a Concurrent Engineering environment is more than the design of teams. The implementation of Concurrent Engineering must change the whole organization. An effective organization can be based on eight principles of the Learning Organization, as pointed out by Senge or Probst. The objective for the design of this organization is to be self-organized. To reach these principles in a CE team environment, the involvedteam members must be qualifted to be prepared for new work in a crossjunctional organization. A soft skill quali$cation system for Concurrent Engineering will be presented at the end of the research project. Contents of this qualihcation model include communication in teams, techniques of group discussion and project management.

INTRODUCTION Due to a decrease in product life cycles and bearing in mind the steadily increasing globalization of,the world’s markets, it is the primary objective of managers to submit a faster entrance of new products in order to strengthen the market position and attaining higher profits (Pennell & Winner, 1989). Shorter product life-cycles reduce the time-in-production. A longer period for a product to gain profit could be induced through a shortening of the product development time. A work organizational concept, of increasing effectiveness and efficiency in the early phases of product development, is Concurrent Engineering (CE). Concurrent Engineering is an integrated and temporally parallel product and process development. In CE technical, organizational, social and personnel

Cross-Functional

Teams

169

aspects are interconnected. The philosophy attached to the concept of Concurrent Engineering, is that formerly used sequential processes can be carried out temporally parallel or overlapped, or even fully integrated i.e. summarized as one activity (Eversheim, 1995, p. 2). The concept of Concurrent Engineering strives to include all concerned areas of the product life cycle, from conception to design, production and eventually waste disposal (Luczak, 1998, p. 522). Targets of Concurrent Engineering are, according to Winner and Pennell (1989, p. 648), primarily associated with: l l l

a reduction of product development time, by simultaneously improving the product quality and reducing production costs.

These goals could be reached by an improved consideration of requirements between the different departments involved in the product development process. Furthermore activities to coordinate processes and the transfer of information in the process should be started as early as possible (Stahl et al., 1997, p. 380). The parallelization and synchronization of processes in the areas of product and process planning results in decisive advantages concerning time reduction, reduction in production costs and quality improvements (Laufenberg, 1995, p. 11). These results are attained from the best possible technological support, cooperative project management, improved communication, cooperation, and the induction of cross-functional project teams. A close cooperation amongst all involved persons and departmental managers at an early stage in the conceptional phase of product development results in an early information exchange of market strategies and targets.It also leads to a development of solutions with regard to products, to be manufactured, and production technologies and their means. This requires, at all firm levels, the implementation of team oriented, cooperative and cross-functional work organization structures which are well defined, by good information exchanges, essential innovational capabilities, high creativity and spontaneousness in order to meet Concurrent Engineering essentials.

CONCURRENT ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES DEFINE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR TEAM WORK The traditional process of product development is a sequential process, which starts in the area of marketing and production with the identification of needs for new products. From there onwards a vague description for the requirements

170

RICHARD DURST AND DIRK KABEL

is passed on to the development department, only after which the results of the process information can be submitted to the sector of production planning. With the completion of planning the guidelines and the schedule are then passed on to production department. The problems of this sequential process lies within the internal departmental treatment of the arising problems, in which interests of primarily or secondarily involved departments are not taken into consideration. This hence leads to an ineffective internal customersupplier-relationship (Briidner, 1996, p. 22). In this way sub-processes can be viewed in detail, which prevents a global view of the product development process and creates a mentality of “throw it over the wall” (Eversheim, 1989). Figure 1 illustrates the mode in which the results could be passed on. When during the nineteen-eighties phrases such as “Simultaneous” and “Concurrent Engineering” form the U.S. and Japan began to gain increasing significance in Europe, product development time of new products was not only calculated in months, but in years. The cycle of innovation for new products, e.g. in automotive industries, took six to ten years in Europe, in Japan only three years (Seitz, 1995, p. 9). This European mode of product development was not competitive, which was clearly visible in the occident world during the 1970s and the 1980s. Typical goods that were produced in the occidental world were driven out of the market by products from the Far East not just because they were cheaper, but qualitatively better (Womack, Jones & Roos, 1990, p. 68). An additional problem was shorter innovation cycles in Japan (Melling et al., 1996, p. 352). This fact made it necessary to radically turn away from old-fashioned sequential product development and production processes, and to part from tayloristic principles (Bemdes & Star&e, 1996, p. 19). Concurrent Engineering: Dejinition and Principles As illustrated the primary target of Concurrent Engineering is the improvement of product development processes as a whole, by reducing product development time and costs, simultaneously improving product quality and flexibly reacting to the demands of the customers. The definiton is broadly standardized within literature, although formulation differs in some cases. The most commonly used is that of Syan (1994, p. 7), who defines it in the following way: Concurrent Engineering is a systematic approach to the integrated, concurrent design of products and their related processes, including manufacture and support. This approach is intended to cause the developers, from the outset, to consider all elements of the product life cycle from concept through disposal, including quality, cost, schedule, and user requirements.

/

Planning

results&

/

Production

results 4

f

results

4

Fig. 1. Sequential Product Development Process.An Example of “Throw It Over The Wall” Mentality.

/

172

RICHARD DURST AND DIRK KABEL

Identical definitions were formulated by Cleetus (1992, p. 3) and M&night and Jackson (1989, p. 25). They also stress the importance of work organizational integration and parallelization of all development activities in teams. Yet they stress the inclusion of customers, the fulfillment of their expectations and open and interactive communication amongst all team members in order to reduce the flow time between the concept and production start (McKnight & Jackson, 1989, p. 25). The central success factor for the implementation of Concurrent Engineering is by use of CE teams. A cross-functional team structure consists of representatives of all involved departments of the producing firm and in some cases representatives of just-in-time suppliers. In this cross-functional team the product development project is conducted (Pawar, 1994, p. 65). Requirements of Concurrent Engineering to Team Design Regarding the product development process as a unique value adding chain it should be considered that other factors besides marketing, production or service are involved in product development (Syan, 1994, p. 23). In a sequential process the flow of information, mostly without feedback, runs parallelly to the flow of material. Therefore redundant work through overlappings or not clarified distribution of tasks and competencies at different interfaces between the departments may occur. This could lead to interface problems and time loss (Mullet-, 1987, p. 17). Further problems arise due to the fact of different comprehension and approaches, for the execution of tasks or by simply ignoring differing requirements and needs of other departments. For the internal integration of data and functions, for external integration of -customers and just-in-time suppliers possibilities are there to solve the problems. The main effect of organizational integration in a team can be seen as extreme time saving, as compared to product development with strict division of labour (Bugger& 1995, p. 105). Examples include the time required for production planning as well as the time required for technical product and process implementation. The integration has limits because the complexity of the measures supporting the activities increases with the number of integrated activities. If activities, due to their high complexity, can’t be integrated, parallelization in the sense of Concurrent Engineering shall be enabled. Then an early consideration of mutual requirements can be met with (Luczak, 1998, p. 523). Parallelization during the process of product development includes the shortening and optimization of essential procedure time. Through structuring and coordination of development procedures, the complete process can be

t-

v

I

Fig. 2. Time Savings in the Product Development Processwith Concurrent Engineering.

Time-to-Market using Concurrent Engineering Principles

Time-to-Market using sequential Design of Product and Process

Product Design

174

RICHARD DURST AND DIRK KABEL

devided into independent partial processes. A maximum number of development stages can hence be worked upon, temporally parallel or overlapping. In order to assure this, bidirectional information flows are necessary. This means that next to the early passing on, of probably still incomplete information and results, feedback about the effects that result therein for following tasks is also of importance. Parallel or simultaneous processes have to be based on precise controlling. The processes and responsibilities for individual tasks must be clearly defined. It is therefore essential to plan parallel tasks in the forefield and with regard to the results and the exchanges of information also control them during project execution (Laufenberg, 1995, p. 15). In order to implement the demanded criteria of Concurrent Engineering, a firm using Concurrent Engineering methods must take into consideration probable changes in its complete organizational structure. A Concurrent Engineering implementation requires changes within the firm organization, a rearrangement of processes as well as investments in new equipments and technologies. Warschat (1996, p. 553) identifies five formal fields: (a) organizational structure; (b) work process organization; (c) information management; (d) products; and (e) firm culture. A very important attachment for the success of realizing a Concurrent Engineering project is described by Eversheim (1995, p. 17) in the following points: (1) Implementation of CE Teams that integrate all departments involved and all interfirm cooperating partners. (2) Implementation of project management principles. (3) Implementation of information and communication technologies for team work support. (4) Implementation of new production methods. Another important precondition for a successful realization of a Concurrent Engineering project are its organizational structures at team levels which are based on the principles and guidelines of arranging Concurrent Engineering (Eversheim, 1995, p. 39; Laufenberg, 1995, p. 28) In this case a number of arrangement possibilities and space for product development projects should be taken into consideration in order to find the optimal solution for a firm. Here the task of a manager is to identify specific work organizational requirements and to develop appropriate structures, to lay the foundation for a successful implementation of a Concurrent Engineering organization. The development of a Concurrent Engineering Team Model underlies influence factors, which are especially reasoned for in the higher managerial

Cross-Functional

Teams

175

levels. Concurrent Engineering possesses a managerial concept which is manifested and discussed in several sources of arrangement models of project management and the discussion of managerial arrangement organization (Heeg, 1993). The arrangement of work organization in a Concurrent Engineering context underlies the requirements which can be derived from project management as well as from characteristics of product development tasks. During transference of work organizational aspects of CE Teams one question especially arises, namely what effects casual forms of project organization have on CE Teams. In practice three different varieties are distinguished: the pure project organization, the influence project organization and the cross-functional matrix project organization. The most important characteristics and criteria are explained at a later stage, whereby the organizational advantages and disadvantages are judged. The project character of Concurrent Engineering further leads to the necessety that CE Teams have to be clearly distinguished from the remaining firm processes. Capacities and resources also underlie this mode of distinguishing and stand in convenience to task execution, the space of the team with regard to decision making, the extent of activities and team internal activities. The sign of a pure project organization is the subsumption of all involved members of a project into one organizational unit under the leadership of one heavyweight project manager (Wheelwright & Clark, 1992). This means that employees can be transferred from different departments to a CE team. The advantage of this structure lies within the definite directional rights and responsibility for results by the project manager and the team’s high “striking ability:’ (Wolf, 1995, p. 10). This organization form is conditional due to a big scope for action of the project leader, especially effective and sensible for projects with definite time frames. The personnel requirement is oriented on the project arrangement and therefore for involved functions fluctuating on a timely basis (Eversheim, 1995, p. 16). Due to a strong rearrangement within the firm huge burdens are involved hence justifying this step only for large projects (Wolf, 1995, p. 10). The influence project management is a changed version of the staff linesystem and is characterized by the fact that the project leader has only advisory, coordinating and reporting functions (Eversheim, 1995, p. 19). The lightweight project leader represents a staff function in which no rights of directing are included. The advantage of this structure is associated with the fact that the leadership can be advised by a project manager or a project team, specialized and competent, without having to go through complicated bureaucratic

RICHARD DURST AND DIRK KABEL procedures. Furthermore the management is disburdened through cancellation of particular tasks or projects (Eversheim, 1995, p. 13). A risk of crossing competencies by project managers, and an associated risk, that conflicts arise because of multi-linear relationships during the task of impiementation could result hereby. In addition to this there is a lack of opportunities for the project team and the project manager to induce methods to successfully complete the projects. “This frustration model is not suitable for small firms.” (Wolf, 1995, p. 10, translated from the original german text.) The most appropriate organization for CE projects is the cross-functional matrix structure, which is very flexible and adjustable to different requirements (Klein, 1993, p. 14). The full responsibility for the project lies in the hands of the project manager and the project team (Eversheim, 1995, p. 19). The individual departments though, continue to underlie the disciplinary and directional authority of the functional leaders. The advantage of this is that every individual team member remains in his departmental section and experiences continuous subject advice (Schiil, 1996, p. 49). The departmental section can react flexibly to resource allocation. Even during project completion and project interruption, generally no abrupt personnel rearrangement takes place. Instead team members can be familiarized, by the departmental manager, with new tasks “step by step” or on a short term basis. Matrix conflicts for competencies and resources can have negative impacts, which could result from allocations induced by project participants and departmental sections. The unification of assignments given to the team members will be given up in favor of a direct order and shorter information flows (Thorn, 1973, p. 123). If the matrix structure underlies strong departmental influence (Wolf, 1995, p. lo), it is likely to fail. Implemented in the environment of described Concurrent Engineering conditions, teams have to fulfill a list of demands that depend on each other: (1) Complexity: The extent and complexity of the work task, which includes the development of aFroduct and the required production process, leads to a complexity in the process flow and the structure of the organization. Complexity also affects work organization within the Concurrent Engineering context (F’rasad, 1996, p. XV, Litke, 1995, p. 43). (2) Cross-functionalism: The involved members of a CE team hail from different functional areas and possess different qualificational characteristics (F’rasad, 1996, p. 171; Ahn, 1997, p. 15; HeBen & Franke, 1998, p. 171). They often use different conceptual systems and interpretations (Dougherty, 1992, p. 179). If they follow contradictory objectives during a simultaneous lack of resources the described matrix conflicts can arise.

Fig.

3. Principles of Matrix Project Management.

Firm Management

178

RICHARD DURST AND DIRK KABEL

(3) Disintegration: whilst in the past temporary teams were implemented, in a Concurrent Engineering environment teams often exist longer today, depending on product complexity and firm size. The spatial divergence of involved persons is resulting from the different functional areas they belong to. This effect can appear in larger firms (Drtike, 1994, p. 206). The temporary divergence through changing time intervals of team membership and departmental work especially appears in small and medium companies or organizational units. Both effects lead to disintegration that could appear with small rates of communication (Allen, 1984) and decreasing identification of the members with the team. (4) Dynamics: The integrated product and process development is a dynamic process, wherein different tasks (Pugh, 1991, p. 173; Alho et al., 1995, p. 349). disturbances, and responsibilities may appear. Furthermore requirements to products and processes may be enlarged and modified by the customer and the management (Drtike, 1994, p. 206). Dynamics requires a flexibility of work persons and work organization in order to respond quickly to the changing requirements (Litke, 1995, p. 45). (5) Uncertainty: Closely associated with dynamics are uncertainty, vagueness and poorly defined structures in the flow of integrated product and process arrangement (Berndes & Stat&e, 1996, p. 31; Alho et al., 1995, p. 349; Ahn, 1997, p. 13; Negele et al., 1997, p. 417). It also results hereby, that only few detailed information about the product is available at the beginning of the development process. For persons within the team the requirement basis is to work with uncertain and fuzzy information and to decide within the margin arranged with management and customers. Further uncertainty includes a certain risk because single activities cannot be determined at the beginning of the process (Litke, 1995, p. 45). (6) Cooperation is the basis for team work and is induced by the complexity of tasks and cross-functionality. The holder of virtually every cooperation are the working persons (Axelrod, 1984, p. 5), who cooperate within and between teams (Erasa& 1996, p. 358) and in some cases inter-firm in order to fulfill the given tasks. (7) Purullelism ofactivities: The parallelism of activities in integrated product and process development is a fundamental characteristic for definition of Concurrent Engineering. It reduces the time-to-market of a product. The main requirement set for work organization deriving from parallelism are synchronization and coordination of critical activities, to find arrangements with other internal and external departments, in order to design appropriate products and processes (Cleetus, 1992, p. 3; Wildemann, 1992, p. 19; Prasad, 1996, p. 168; Ahn, 1997, p. 11).

Cross-Functional

179

Teams

of activities: Next to parallelism there is an integration of activities of product and process development tasks and of “structures and functions” (Olmstead, 1992). This is a further characteristic of Concurrent Engineering which has to be taken into consideration via coordination and structural means (Wildemann, 1992, p. 19; Syan, 1994, p. 7; Molina et al., 1995, p. 38; Ahn, 1997, p. 11). (9) Goal system: Deriving from the project character of integrated product and process development, the goal system (Aggteleky & Bajna, 1992, p. 77; Lock, 1997, p. 19) - taking into consideration the time schedule and producing with minimal costs and high quality - will influence the work organization. A goal oriented work flow, an identity of objectives of the involved persons and strict controlling of goal achievement is required. (8) Integration

The problem associated with the transfer of topics in the course of the organization, with regard to aspects of work organization in CE teams lies within the structuring of activities necessary to establish the required products or services. As described, a main characteristic of CE teams is that they execute their tasks in the form of projects. They therefore have to carry out different activities on a non-routine basis, which are especially charactererized by their uniqueness.

LEARNING ORGANIZATION PRINCIPLES DEFINE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR TEAM WORK In order to fulfill the large varieties of complex challenges for organizational arrangement processes with Concurrent Engineering projects, it is not sufficient to simply establish team structures. An effectivity of teams can only be achieved if cross-functional cooperation within the team is based on defined interpersonal processes. Furthermore Concurrent Engineering requires coordinating processes and interface management between departments of organizations. That is why an appropriate organizational basis must be created, which is able to establish such processes. The concept of Learning Organizations is one possible approach to processes of organizational change for work in teams. Learning Organization: Dejhition

and Principles

Organizational design concepts are viewed by firms today as open, socially and technically determined systems that strive to be economic. The openness and

RICHARD DURST AND DIRK KABEL

dynamism of these systems stand in close conjunction to its environment and is especially determined by interaction processes of involved individuals. Through communication and cooperation of individuals, a permanent process of information and knowledge creation arises. This leads to further exchanges in structures and processes within the organization and and in relation to its environment. Every organization is; according to this concept; closely associated to its members, furthering exchange relationships (Probst & Btichel, 1994, p. 16). The guidelines of Learning Organizations can be seen as substitutes to technically oriented, tayloristic concepts of past decades, which brought up the sequential product development process with all its disadvantages. Learning in organizations is activated and implemented through creative and innovative skills of all employees (Probst & Btichel, 1994, p. 23). The logic consequence lies in distancing from formalistic, technically centered top-down concepts which ignore the employee as an instrument to establish an organizational arrangement, in which active and visionary action of all employees would be a basic principle. The triggering effect for the learning process in organizations is generally caused by general problems, which are unsolved or formerly unused potentials of all forms. It is possible to start the processes through internal and external factors, such as lack of satisfaction, conflicts, lack of structures, competitive pressure or newly identified innovation potentials. New products and their development processes also contribute to new problems, primarily induced by external factors from the markets, which can be solved in Learning Organizations more efficiently than in traditional ones. On the one hand the described dynamism encourages an unfolding of individual personalities, as long as they can actively bring themselves into the changing processes. On the other hand it can be used for a reorganization of work by taking into consideration the guidelines of Learning Organizations. In this way competitiveness can be increased. The Learning Organization leads to a change on the different’levels of the organization itself. This is because existing structures and processes are not only questioned superficially but also indepth. Probst and Btichel consider individuals, teams, elites and social systems as bearers of Organizational Learning processes. The product development process in CE teams is characterized by uncertainty and poorly defined structures. Therefore orienting firm organizations and CE Teams, according to the guidelines of Learning Organizations, would mean using the advantage of the required flexibility in order to develop and design products that are customer and goal oriented.

Cross-Functional Teams

181

Bearers of Organizational Learning

Probst and Btichel (1994) denote different bearers for the process of organizational learning, namely individuals, groups, elites, and memory capacity systems. Individuals as Bearers of Organizational Learning

Models that focus on individuals as bearers of Organizational Learning are based on the theory that organizations cannot have thoughts in the sense that individuals could have. Hence these models underscore, that only humans are capable of cooperating, communicating and learning (Jelinek, 1979). They also give humans a central position and concentrate on their motives, interests and values. Human interaction i.e. communication is a specific characteristic of collective learning of individuals. Individuals experience inter-subjective realities through dialogues with other persons in the organization. This generates a vision shared by several persons. Thereby individuals are capable of questioning and reflecting their action and behavior theories. On the other hand they can implement their sustained knowledge during problem situations. In this context individuals contribute to changes within the organization through individual learning results (Probst & Biichel, 1994, p. 64; Senge, 1990). Elites as Bearers of Organizational Learning

Organizational Learning is a process in an organization in which members, in the course of time, develop essential organizational changes. So called elites start to determine a time frame for these changes which they believe can be succtssful. The initiation of changes and the successful implementation of innovations by such elites contribute to organizations. A group of elite members, which are particularly capable of learning and hence changing, grows out of the organization. These members are then heads of the course in the process of organizational change (Probst & Btichel, 1994, p. 64). Teams as Bearers of Organizational Learning

Due to the complexity of working together in an organization, it is quite unlikely that single individuals are capable of bearing and pushing forward learning within whole organizations. Instead, the most diverse group processes can be found in different departments which contribute to the organizational development process. So hence, especially creative and inventive groups, as well as networking activities within firms, will support this learning process. A change of knowledge arises through the self-organization of groups. It leads to

182

RICHARD DURST AND DIRK KABEL

a re-definition of the team’s context and its tasks and methods which furthermore leads to knowledge extension of the team members. This knowledge extension is generated through interdisciplinary project teams, e.g. those which hail from the most different departments like cross-functional teams in Concurrent Engineering. It is expected that members of the organization induce organizational learning through the ‘change of knowledge shared by the majority of members. Organizational Learning is thus enhanced by the change of the commonly shared values and suggestions or even cognitive maps. This means that fundamental hypotheses and guidelines change continuously. A majority of organization members are involved therein, as this can only be achieved through common establishment of team identities (Berger, 1966). Through the unification and consensus finding process, conducted by the organization members, a fundamental change of the guidelines is implemented, eventually resulting in Organizational Learning (Probst & Btichel, 1994, p. 65). Memory Systems as Bearers of Organizational Learning

In contrast to other models the concept of Organizational Learning does not only consider groups or individuals as bearers. It is based on a change of the organization itself, i.e. the collection and standardization of learning experiences e.g. in regulation, visual management or artifacts. Probst considers these as so called “memory systems”, with which a hypothetical connection between internal units and external environments can be established. Through these systems the organization is capable of saving and modifying collective, and apart from that individual knowledge. Requirements of Organizational Learning to Team Design

In the forefront of the concept of the Learning Organization is not the analysis of the individual bearers’and shareholders in the changing process but the interaction that takes part between individuals and organizations. From the term Learning Organization an increase of process and change of common organizational values and knowledge basis are expected. Furthermore it includes an improvement of problem solving and handling capacities, as well as changes in the common guidelines from and for members within the organization structure. Ideally the concept of Learning Organization does not only stand for individual values, needs and motives in the forefront of changes. Instead of this, normative structures concerning decision processes of team members are developed, in which a consensus in decisions is desired for.

Cross-Functional

Teams

183

The development of Learning Organizations is driven by the bearing individuals. Demands for the development of an organization must be presented and executed by the employees themselves. The most important characteristics are according to Probst (1994), Senge (1990), Luczak (1996, 2000), and Wimmer (1998): (1) Systems identity: The organization must be given a common identity which enables a common team sense of taking action and sharing visions between the members of the organization. (2) Pm socialization: This criterion includes trust, acceptance, the will to constructive cooperation as well as tolerance towards other standpoints which could determine the quality of interaction within a team. (3) Heterurchy: The concept of leadership according to classic, hierarchical structures must be given up. Leadership tasks and leadership responsibilities should be broadly delegated to work teams in their common responsibility. (4) Participation: The organizational members are involved in decision making and organizational development processes within the firm. (5) Proactivity: Interconnected and wholesome thinking shall lead to foresight and responsible action by individual members of the organization. (6) Flexibility: Work organizational structures and laying down of ideal and firm political goals according to the traditional and narrow thought structures will be dismantled and redeveloped. Traditional conditions of behavior and prescribed actions must be left so that quick decisions can be taken and implemented. (7) &mning capacity: Especially an unfolding of personalities of organizational team members should be enhanced through an interconnection of work and learning. A frequent exchange with other group members should be established in order to broaden individual and organizational competencies. (8) Self organization: Systems design and controlling arises from systems themselves; which means that systems are defined and preserved through situative and problem oriented interactions and relations between the individual members. Furthermore the self organized processes have many and diverse interconnections and a high complexity. Due to the fact that in self organized processes everyone is involved in change, heterarchy becomes a principle. This leads to several systems elements with similar capabilities. Thus, for the complete system this could lead to diverse and redundant qualifications. Self organization therefore means that teams in an

184

RICHARD

DURST AND DIRK KABEL

organization are broadly self reliant, self regulatory and are able to improve without external regulations. These guidelines are supported by developing new tools in the form of visualization, creativity and structuring techniques as well as simulations to develop and support the systematic mode of thinking @rings, 1997, p. 41). In order to prepare the employees in teams for these new demands it is essential to support the induction of a qualificational concept that meets the requirements of a Learning Organization. At first glance, the concept of a Learning Organization seems like a visionary and theoretically abstract concept. Indeed on the one hand this organizational concept cannot be proven empirically, till date. Yet on the other hand it is out of the question, what importance teamwork has on the way to a learning organization. Advantages of teamwork can in particularly be seen in tasks, which are induced by environmental conditions: compared to the individual, the team has a broad spectrum of knowledge. Teams can be more flexible and capable of changing and developing better results in finding a consensus (Krings, 1997, p. 37). Teamwork forms enhance the process of change on the way to a Learning Organization. The ideal form of a team is attained, if its members solve relevant partial tasks in an organizational institutionalized framework of structures and rules. The setting as well as the execution of common tasks will independently be planned, controlled and executed by the team. The range of competence given to the employees in teams, should allow them to derive and implement such means. The activity of teams has a strong character of problem solving: not the execution of assigned tasks but the solving of problems and the permanent development of work processes is the primary objective of the team. To summarize this, team oriented structures set the first steps to establish a Learning Organization in a firm.

TEAM WORK AS AN INTEGRATIONAL MECHANISM FOR CItQSS-FUNCTIONAL TASKS Work organizational integration as it is realized in cross-functional teams can be described as the quality of cooperation of different departments within an organization, e.g. manufacturing, research & development and marketing. These are essential in order to develop and produce a new product as a common achievement of a team. According to Nadler and Tushman (1988, p. 469) the integrational requirements a team has to face are dependent on the characteristics of given tasks. These tasks of product development are according to Hijgl (1998, p. 14) affected by high complexities, uncertainties

Cross-Functional

Teams

185

and the amount of conflicts between the departments involved in the product development process. This is because different departments of the firm have to cooperate closely and find agreements based on different departmental goal systems. The objective of the arrangement of this cross-functional integration in a team is to establish essential information channels between the different departments involved. Forms of Group and Team Work in Firms

Team and group structures are nothing new to firms and their management. Different motives can result in action of teams or groups within firms. In direct areas of manufacturing and assembly, teams are established in order to transfer routinely conducted work to so called semi-autonomous teams. These work teams are established to raise the degree of autonomy as well as the range of competences, so that motivation and satisfaction contribute to better products. Beyond this immediate managerial interest an extension of the participational possibilities for workers on the shop floor are taken into consideration. The starting point for the establishment of these semi-autonomous work teams is a concept for organization in manufacturing - i.e. considering the production amount, an increase in varieties and a decrease of lot sizes by set off trends rather than a managerial organization which could lead to an interconnection of the whole firm as a system (Esser, 1992, p. 18; Hiigl, 1998, p. 14). A second point of view leads to the formation of teams by a top-down oriented managerial approach. Teamwork in this context is not a tool but the origin of organizational development. Thus it is part of new organizational concepts like Learning Organization or Concurrent Engineering. The task of such&earns is the identification, analysis and solution of complex problems in clearly defined projects. Especially in tasks of product development, where treatment of complexities and uncertainties plays an important role, a crossfunctional integration of representatives from different departments of a firm would be of significance. This second type of teams sets the framework for the development of a CE team model and a qualificational concept for employees who have to work in a cross-functional team. Teams and Groups: De$nition and Principles

The concept of “group” is a diverse and commonly used term because it is used and understood differently, in varying contexts. The smallest social unit, in which humans come together, take up and play a role. From the number of different definitions made by Cartwright and Zander (1968), Homans (1950) or Mills (1969), the following characteristics can be derived:

186

RICHARD DURST AND DIRK KABEL

(1) The group is a social system comprising of more than 2 individuals. (2) The group members stand, in certain time frames, in exchanging relationships and have the possibility of interaction and communication. (3) The members of a group have common aims and interests; they don’t only appear to be united outwards but do feel so, which hence results in group harmony. (4) The group establishes a role and status structure and hence a formal structure so that their tasks and goal settings can only be achieved by a common interaction of individual group members. (5) The group develops specific attitudes and group norms, for which the members of the group are solely responsible. Literature and practical appliances show that the terms “team” or “group” are used to define all forms of cooperating persons, but a unique categorization cannot be induced. To Hackman (1987, p. 315), Katzenbach and Smith (1990, p. 68), Guzzo and Shea (1992, p. 269), Minssen (1999, p. 50) and Hog1 (1998, p. 16) teams are: a unit of three or more persons whose members can be identified as those from the outside, and identify themselves with the team (identity) who are integrated into the organizational context by direct cooperation of its members in fulfilling common tasks. These definitions are differentiated and describe work groups in production as well as teams with planning tasks in Concurrent Engineering or management teams. Numerous authors though, identify special forms of work groups. These groups can be seen as organizationally regulated, personal cooperation in areas of manufacturing and assembly, which are conducted on a routine basis. Teams are defined as institutionalized work groups, which deal with complex and diverse problems in own working styles and take up additional qualities compared to work groups. Bosch (1996, p. 52) summarizes the differences in the following way: ; l l

l l

Table I.

Differences Between Groups and Teams.

Traditional Group

Team

inward competition individual term planning autocracy independent/over-dependent rejection of challenge

outward competition joint term planning partnership jointly dependent acceptance of challenge

Cross-Functional Teams

187

The following functional conditions are summarized, which distinguish teams from manufacturing and assembly groups (Bosch 1996, p. 55). (1) Communicational conditions: Necessity of combining information continuously with ideas and experience. (2) Condition of acceptance: Solutions in problem solving are carried by the whole team and considered as a success of every member. (3) Condition of independence: All team members remain independent, every team member should be able to express his opinions freely and the team as a whole has no outstanding position within the firm’s hierarchy. (4) Conditions of rationalization: Through common planning in teams individual tasks are assigned to its members, so that everyone receives capability conform tasks, which also means a role oriented consideration of social capabilities. (5) Conditions of equivalence: Team members are equivalent and cooperating specialists without hierarchical positions in a team. Only the team leader has interdisciplinary and cross-functional coordination and leadership tasks. (6) Conditions of self coordination: the group can autonomously organize itself, whereas the team can orientate itself on compulsory goals and objectives agreed upon. Models of Team Work in Concurrent Engineering

One aim of team research is to conceptionally derive descriptional models and prove them empirically, in order to achieve concrete checklists and organizational design rules that can be generalized. In the following paragraph known team models are used, in order to gain hints for the design of teams and their environment in Concurrent Engineering processes. For drafting a CE team model the requirements of Concurrent Engineering and Learning Organizations must be considered, which have been defined previously. The task to develop and produce a complex product and the process involved in it, influence the focal point of model design. The more complex the product, the more complex are tasks, team structures and processes within teams. Thereby, there is no typical CE team. Usually many teams exist in firms, which deal with a number of different modules of a product e.g. in automotive industry exterior and interior design, development of chassis and electronic equipment. For the execution of tasks a cross-functional cast of experts is required in design and technology.

188

RICHARD

DURST AND DIRK KAEIEL

An example of product development in several teams is conducted by Fujimoto (1989, p. 5): Next to several project execution teams, whose members directly participate, exists a project liaison team. Simonese and van Eijnaten (1996, p. 638) call it cross-functional team, which exists on a long term basis and where in a series of periodic meetings, representatives of all relevant functional departments participate, communicate and coordinate. Known Team Models

If one wishes to open up the field of CE teams, one should start with environmental models of Concurrent Engineering. An empirically proven model concerning human factors (Chen, 1996, p. 165), gives hints to factors of industrial engineering research, which have to be taken into consideration. A further practically proven model, based on the flow of product development projects has to be considered (Frankenberger, 1997, p. 35). Further, models associated with boundary management e.g. of Sundstrom et al. (1990, p. 120) have to be integrated. This model sets the guidelines e.g. the organization of teams in shell-like-models. Next to these environmental models, a number of team models for diverse functional areas in firms and the military exist. In the following chapters, especially models involved in the development of products and processes are to be considered. In literature several team models are conceptionally described and confirmed in empirical studies. One possible classification of team models on the one hand orientated on its morphologic structure, on the other hand on its tasks and functional areas. The frequent military models are hence only conditionally transferable but do give hints to relevant design factors of CE teams. These factors are indeed comparable, its developments will vary as opposed to i.e. combat units. The base structures of the known model can be classified as follows: Effect networks: McGrath (1964, p. 48) has developed a first relational team model, which makes the different interconnections in a firm visible. Unfortunately this model has not been empirically confirmed. It is but the starting point of all team models, developed later on. TWOstage models: Many two-stage models have been developed due to study designs (Cohen et al., 1996, p. 643). If one were to prove the effects of input conditions on effectiveness, it is easy to examine a relationship between independent and dependent variables on a statistical basis. Unfortunately though, the team process is often excluded from examination and remains a black box. The processes within teams broadly remain unnoticed. Three stage model: A better vision of the real team processes follows in a three stage model, which present teams as a three step, input-process-output, l

l

l

Cross-Functional Teams

l

189

system. Thus it reflects the process thought but also the work systems defined in industrial engineering and ergonomic science. It reflects the procedural intention but also the work organizational intention of systems thought. A contribution for the conception of a three stage model is shown by Hackman and Morris (1975, p. 45), and later on by Hackman (1987, p. 315; 1990, p. 399). In these models often an empirical examination is not conducted because of complex statistics and required random samples. Yet especially Gladstein (1984, p. 499) and later Gladstein and Caldwell (1990, p. 119; 1992, p. 321) empirically and under observation of tasks for product development confirmed effects. Checklist based models (Levi & Slem, 1995, p. 29): These are most user friendly for managers and process analysts in team development. They are only partially connected to structural models and are often proven without these structural models.

Further, there are a number of problem specific models which are related to one aspect of teamwork. They are too specialized for discussions in this contribution, yet they can assist practically oriented co-workers. Structure and Environmental Aspects of CE-Teams For the authors the following requirements were set in deriving a model: The model should visualize the effect relationship, be empirically provable without having to use many random samples and should be noted in a, for practical purposes useful, checklist. The choice of the structure was a three stage - input., process, output model as reasoned for, by Hackman and Morris (1975, p. 45). This allows the consideration of human factors according to Chen (1996, p. 165) and the integration of structures and processes (Millitello et al., 1999, p. 131) which are essential for Concurrent Engineering. Similar experiences have been made by the authors in practical projects (Kabel & Durst 1999, p. 214). That is why the team structures were seen in the course of the process as alterable variables. In the course of a project for integration the parallel design of product and processes shift permanently in main focus of tasks, so that in the course of time the structures in the team continuously change in big and small steps. After the structure has been set, the definition of different constructs of variables and interrelations in a team follows. Only following this literary viewpoint is a derivation of a so called checklist for team arrangements and a requirements list for team qualification possible. The constructs and variables have though been compared to experiences and empircal results that could be derived from case studies. But no deviation could be discovered.

i 10 I

Fig.

-+

Effectiveness Outcomes

Psychosocial Outcomes

Dependency -----b Dependency (long-term) ----l0 I, Quasi-static Indicators !----I

Team Structure

Team Performance

4. Structure and Variables of the CE Team Model Including Interrelations.

, ,.-----_--------------------------~

Individual

Organization__

input Conditions

I

Cross-Functional Teams

191

Input Variables Just like all other systems, teamwork is dependent on input conditions. In our model we assume that these are largely independent. The results of the group proceases will influence the input conditions on medium and long term basis, but for the viewing of team structures these influences are less interesting. Yet as a type of learning loop they represent the long term effects of team work on the organization, the task and the individual, as required for in learning organizations. Interrelationships between input conditions are neglected as they remain fairly constant during the Concurrent Engineering processes. They do not affect the team process, on which the focus is laid. While defining the three input variables, the characteristics of known team models are looked back on: l

l

l

Organization: Characteristics of organizations (Sundstrom et al., 1990, p. 120; Chen, 1996, p. 165; Tannenbaum et al., 1992, p. 117; Denison et al., 1996, p. 1005; Campion et al., 1993, p. 823 and 1996, p. 429; Bikson et al., 1999, p. 215; Hackman, 1987, p. 315; Gladstein, 1984, p. 499) are resources and infrastructures, training offers to team members, involvement of the top management in the team work, firm determinants and boundary or interface management in team limits. Task: Task characteristics (Gladstein, 1984, p. 499), project planning (Campion et al., 1993, p. 823 and 1996, p. 429; Guzzo & Shea, 1987) and task specific resources (Hackman, 1987, p. 315) describe its complexity. These are largely influenced by customers or rather the market and determined by them. Individual (McGrath, 1964, p. 48; Nieva et al., 1978, p. 5; Stahl, 1999, p. 98): This cluster is described by the indicators knowledge, affective indicators suck as attitudes, motivation, motives-sensumotoric indicators and physiological indicators - e.g. personality, gender and race.

Team Variables

Strongly influenced by input conditions, the process variables form the throughput in teams. As has been shown, there is also strong interrelation between the team variables. The team structure and the expressing indicators are in no way constants during the period of the CE project, instead they are largely influenced by the team process variables. Resulting from this knowledge, both team variables can be described as follows: l

Team structure: next to the composition, regulation and leadership, which is the primary focus of references, leadership and cooperative project manager is seen in product development oriented references as a design parametric

192

l

RICHARD

DURST AND DIRK KABEL

and indicator (Gladstein, 1984, p. 499; Chen, 1996, p. 165; Frankenberger, 1997, p. 35; Hogl, 1998, p. 86). Team process: Next to Concurrent Engineering specific product and process related arrangement procedures, formal C3 processes - cooperative, coordinative and communicative processes - and not strongly separated informal personnel and social interaction processes in teams are mentioned in other references (Frankenberger, 1997, p. 43).

The process variables in teams determine the results of team work and hence directly the results of Concurrent Engineering processes. The arrangement and support of team structures and its processes have an important role to play for the introduction and the realization of Concurrent Engineering concepts in firms. Known methods which solely hold management oriented viewpoints bear the risk of failures as they broadly neglect or only superficially regard human factors and team sizes. Output Variables Should the success of teamwork in Concurrent Engineering processes be analysed, it is essential to check on the economic and human oriented aims. The economic viability and effectiveness is clearly in the forefront as it is decisive for the existence of a firm. Next to this monetary and clearly identifiable factor there are further indirect effects, which are summarized under the category of psychosocial outcomes. l

l

Psychosocial outcomes: Organizational outcomes (Denison et al., 1996, p. 1005), team changes and individual changes are especially discussed in detail by Tannenbaum et al. (1992, p. 117), referred to in nearly all references. Effectiveness of task execution: quality is especially supported in product development related references (Chen,, 1996, p. 165; Frankenberger 1997, p. 43; Tannenbaum et al., 1992, p. 117), whilst quantity is completed in classic project management triple target through costs and deadlines.

Interesting for the analysis of process outcome variables is also viability from a team perspective which Sundstrom et al. (1990, p. 120) regards as a variable to measure team effectiveness. Checklists for CE teams The structural model in the presented form has only limited access, to assess teams and derive hints of design. That is why a checklist is derived from the model of team design and arrangement in Concurrent Engineering. It includes the defined constructs and the indicators used for definitional purposes. In the

Cross-Functional

Teams

193

first level it is structured according to the three stages of the model and according to the constructs thereafter. From the indicators used in the checklist, which is presented in detail in the appendix, arrangement procedures can be derived. Further requirements for the qualification of team members can be derived therefrom.

DERIVATION OF QUALIFICATIONAL CONCEPTS FOR TEAM WORK IN A CONCURRENT ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENT The development of organizations takes place, according to the concept of Learning Organizations, in and through humans. Demands for the development possibility of organizations must therefore be fulfilled by the shareholders. Methodical and expert knowledge of organizational members related to product development has to be complemented by social skills and team related methodological knowledge. In order to prepare the employees for cross-functional product development purposes, qualificational methods should be implemented. These qualificational methods intend to secure the fact that individual and organizational learning processes should be supported and promoted, so that a maximum degree of self-organization in cross-functional CE Team can be established. The intensive interaction between persons of departments involved in the development process on the one hand leads to discussions of different perspectives and viewpoints with the aim of working out common ways and visions for the team. On the other hand different cultures and departmental philci!4ophies in cross-functional teams - partially inter-firm, partially spatial and temporary divergent - collide into each other. Thereby an exchange of different values and norms is induced. For this reason it is essential to take into consideration qualificational requirements which can be derived from the previously presented CE team model and the characteristics of Learning Organizations: l

l

l

Communication and discourse capability is unavoidable for the process of organizational learning in integrated product and process development. In cross-functional CE teams different individual experience backgrounds flow together. Models and methods of complex problem solving must be supported by classic elements of project management, network techniques, cost-effectiveness-analysis or the decision-treemethod.

RICHARD

194

DURST AND DIRK KABEL

In order to remember important aspects - adapted from discussions -, complex interconnections, details, opinions and questions can and should be presented and documented with visualization techniques. Systematic and interconnected thinking becomes a central tool of product development in Learning Organizations. . In cross-functional teams, common values and norms must be developed. These can then build up on departmental interfaces to create cohesion, which quasi serves as “glue” to induce an identity between involved persons. In cooperative product development it is essential that the participants are open to different opinions and allow an equivalent exchange of opinions, viewpoints and attitudes.

l

l

l

On the basis of these requirements a multi-dimensional qualificational concept is developed. Qualification is thereby not only understood as training of team members in seminars but - this especially in the initial and preparational phase of teams - also as sensibilization for new forms of cross-functional team work. In this training concept both elements find an entrance: l

l

information, hand, within training for uncertainties

sensibilization and participational qualifications on the one CE team meetings and CE teams for the overcoming of involved complexities and on the other hand in order to set up organizational learning.

The first element is a qualificational process, which is controlled through the work in teams. This element is called participational qualification because, due to supervision and coaching during CE team sessions, the processes can be reflected and worked out. The second element consists of trainings that are initiated by the daily agenda and executed by the team members. In the following chapter the guidelines of the qualificational concept are presented. A further chapter describes the concept of external training measures. Sensibilization for Team Processes through Involvement Qualijication In the starting phase of a product development project the implementation of an appropriate project is necessary. The CE teams are generally not capable to unfold the complete efficiency from the beginning of the project but must for this matter establish the essential pre-conditions. This includes according to the presented team model development of common goals, values, norms and regulations for problem and conflict solving. In a cross-functional CE team differences of the individual departments can collide with each other, which can be conducted in the way discussions are held and reflected. In order to avoid any unnecessary misunderstandings and enable

Cross-Functional Teams

195

fairly quick and efficient work in teams, a sensibilization of the involved for such group dynamic processes and their influences on the results of the teams must be included. The team process comprises all kind of interaction, with or between, team members while the team is working. The team processes or group dynamics include things such as e.g. feelings, atmosphere, influence, involvement, power, fights for leading positions, competition, cooperation and normatives etc. (Staehle, 1994, p. 133). The following paragraphs deal with a few of these aspects, which should be considered in the starting phase in order to establish the conditions for further development processes. Decision Making

A team that wants to fulfill its goals and objectives must make decisions. Thereby it must be noticed that some teams cannot get along as soon as they have to take a decision. Frequently occuring attitudes are according to Antons (1996) in this context: l

l

l l

l

l

A recommendation can’t be considered in a general discussion. Such omission can often be found in new teams. These new teams are often confronted with diverse problems: if in a team many members have the same influences, if a team member is aggressive, if a team member can’t express his recommendations properly. A recommendation is accepted gleefully, but then someone else has a new idea. The former decision is then immediately dropped. A team member shows his competence and nobody dares to disagree. Some of the team members may have already found an arrangement about a solution. In the sessions these persons support each other and other opinions ha@ly have any chance. Democracy can quickly turn into “democratorship ” if even objectively wrong decisions are based on majorities and minorities don’t want to be regarded as being undemocratic and therefore don’t disagree in open conflict. A decision will be avoided if a topic is changed and side topics arise, or if a topic is made more problematic than before. Due to this the actual problem is darkened and distorted and the team may be forced into decisions that it originally was far from.

The task of the team leader is to monitor these different strategies, make himself and the team aware of them and enhance the team to find a common solution. In how far this is possible does not only depend on capabilities of the team leader but also depends on the maturity of the team (Tuckman, 1977). The team must pass through different forms of decision making strategies in order

1%

RICHARD

DURST AND DIRK KABEL

to reach appropriate decision mechanisms. This may at first sight cost a lot of money on the long run though motivation can be achieved since all team members support the decision. Factors which faciliate decisions by the whole group are listed according to Schulz-Hardt and Frey (1998, p. 129) e.g.: l l l

l

l

An exact definition of problems. An appropriate team size. A clear insight about the degree of responsibility, which every individual bears for decisions. Effective methods of idea findings and discussions, the examination of other problem solutions, the execution of agreed resolutions. Agreement about the procedure by which decisions are to be made even before the problem solving is started.

Some of these points are regarded in the appropriate qualificational elements. Rules and Norms In every group or in every team, hidden or well-known rules exist about what is and what is not allowed. Rules are generally codes of conduct of the type “if you are in situation X, then take Y”. These also contribute to stable performance. In everyday situations this may be e.g. “if the traffic light is red, then stop” or “if you meet somebody, then you must greet him”. Even for team sessions certain rules must be adhered to e.g. “If somebody else is talking, then listen” or “telephoning forbidden during a conference”. Even the seating arrangement can be based upon such hidden agreements. The members adhere to these rules in an obvious manner, even though they may not have been written down. If these rules are stable, then it is a clear sign of team norms. Yet because nobody has spoken openly about such norms, it is unclear as to whether everybody has understood them equally. To some these norms are absolutely clear, others can guess, and they may yet be completely unknown to others. Here it is quite visible how important the development of common agreements over norms is to cross-functional teams, which could consist of a mixture of norms known in the different functional departments or may even be completely new. The better a team knows its norms and internal rules, the easier it is to take them into consideration and deal with them appropriately (Wellhiifer, 1993, p. 55). Constructive Work Atmosphere “That’s not how we treat things in our department”, “We’ve never done it like that before” and “why should we change that procedure, it is reliable and can’t

Cross-Functional Teams

197

be improved” are so called “killer phrases” which may occur in teams. With such a destructive attitude all negotiations are deemed to fail. If team members don’t want to contribute to problem solving they may believe that their opinion is not asked for. This might be caused by e.g. the team leader anyway criticizes everything and decides in an individualistic manner. This attitude can’t contribute to results. So, in order to work solution and goal oriented, the CE team should fulfill certain criteria. A group can only unfold its complete potential when all group members can freely express their own opinions. Teams whose work results depend on the contribution of a few don’t only give up many ideas but also the support of the complete team for the implementation of worked out solutions. The three most important factors for a constructive and creative work atmosphere is openness, tolerance and conflict capability of team members (Durst et al., 1999). Openness is essential so that all team members can express their arguments freely. . Tolerance from all sides is equally important, so that no contribution is immediately criticized. Yet this happens inspite of the fact that many team members practise self censorship before contributing to an issue. Due to this several ideas get lost in the process and openness is threatened. Conflict capability: If many are questioned many will answer. These answers can partially be contradictory. Team members and leaders must be able to deal with these conflicts.

l

l

Feedback

To give and receive feedback is a social ability that is often implemented in the phrase of team ability (Rechtien, 1992, p. 200). Without a surrounding feedback about ones own attitudes, the learning of social interaction would not be possible. Yet to give and receive feedback is not always easy. It requires a good observation, good ability to empathize, to understand what the discussion is about and the ability to construct the feedback in such a manner that it is constructive and not destructive. Oppositely the acceptance of feedback requires openness as well as interest and curiosity to find out more about oneself. Listening, waiting, and questioning signalize such an attitude. Feedback can take up the contents of the news, but simultaneously also the included emotional or social messages or the way in which the message is delivered (e.g. the tone of the voice, and the mimics). Feedback is a form of meta-communication about the behavior with each other and can be conducted verbally or non-verbally, e.g. via body language. The constructive form of

198

RICHARD

DURST AND DIRK KABEL

feedback processes can be studied and is a primary pre-condition of successful teams (Rechtien, 1992, p. 202). Creating Social and Methodical Competencies

As a supporting measure for the starting phase of the product development project, training for some fundamental social and methodological competenties for work in CE teams is conducted which eventually results in self-organization within teams. PrincipaIly speaking qualificational contents and methods differ which solve concrete problems (Francis & Young, 1992) of work in team processes and communications amongst each other (Antons, 1996). The mediation of methods for problem and conflict solving as well as for improvement of perceptions, communication and capabilities of cooperation must be measured by how far it can contribute to resolving complexities. This can be realized e.g. through the establishment of a common comprehension of the cooperation partners (systems identity) as a pre-condition for pro-social, pro-active, flexible and self-organizational teams. Generally a qualificational concept must be laid out in such a manner that the teams and individuals requiring training are in a state of spontaneously changing requirements and adequate methodical support. A special importance attached to successful work in teams is the reflection and feedback method. An appropriate induction of this method contributes to the more difficult communicative and group dynamic elements of the cooperation processes, the discussion, execution and its improvement. Concretely these guidelines were transferred into a multi-step qualificational concept, the structure can be clearly seen in Fig. 5. The individual elements communication, complex problem resolution and systematic thinking include two days each and should ideally be conducted at an early stage of product development process. Qualijkational

Element: Communication

In the first qualificational element, fundamental communicative and interactive capabilities are passed on, such as social perception. This results in recognizing and adequately responding to contents by appropriatly feeling aspects of news, active listening, and feedback and dealing with communication disturbances. The education of such contents is essential because in team work: there are those who are silent and those who speak aloud. The former are regarded as the “black sheep” and the latter as the “secret chiefs”. Silent participants often fail in getting the word. Participants may talk about topics not on the agenda. l

l l

Cross-Functional

Teams

199

200

RICHARD DUFGT AND DRK KABEL

Participants may not listen properly. Participants may not contribute to the group. Old arguments may continuously be repeated. Continuous problems of mixing up contents and relationship problems may occur. Some participants may behave in a more individualistic manner, rather than group orientated. Individuals may block individual participants due to disturbances. Rivahies can often take place. Bad feelings may be expressed. Insecurity may be demonstrated by over exaggerating in trying to receive acknowledgement (clique building). As these and similar communication deficiencies have a negative effect on cooperation and results of teams, in the first qualificational element fundamental, communicative and interactive capabilities are mediated. These are basic conditions for self organized work in CE teams. A major goal of the qualificational element “communication” is to improve the team members’ capability to exchange news and information in order to improve the understanding of the members in a product development process in CE teams. For the induction and the application of user oriented seminar elements the typical communication problems in team processes can be described. This gives the team members the capability to react to disturbances and conflicts appropriately. l l l l

l

l l l l

Qualijicational Element: Complex Problem Solving Next to the communicative and integrative aspect, a central task of product development teams is to work on different topics for product and process arrangement. Next to this is the generation of ideas and the recognition, definition and solution of problems. The classic approach to solve problems describes the problem solving cycle which sets the guidelines for the second qualificational element thbt strives for the team members to learn about methods for resolving complex problems (Darner, 1992). With the help of planning games, in which a defined firm can be used as a case study for many difficulties, team members learn to use a number of new methods which support the individual phases of problem solving processes and help in solving complex tasks and information flows. Methods learned are e.g. Brainstorming, Ishikawa Diagram, Mind mapping, relationship networks, results analysis. The learning of different methods will be simplified through such planning games (Schiepeck & Manteufel, 1998, p. 40). This is because from a unique and more comprehensive information basis team members can

Cross-Functional Teams

201

concentrate on the methods. They will not be distracted from topics in their own working life. Further visualization and presentation techniques as well as good use of implemented media techniques will be learned, in order to present the solutions and recommendations. This element supports and develops personal and team related planning concepts. It is essential for the success of intra- and inter-firm cooperations in the context of integrated product and process development. This is not only the case for the flow of problem solving cycles but also due to the presentation and experiencing of clear structures which can be presented in small steps within project management. Quali$cational

Element: Systems Thinking

Product development should be viewed as an open designing and learning process, which due to its complexity has high requirements for all involved parties. The essential organizational development is therefore to be supported by an essential complexity management. Especially the third qualificational element “systems thinking” should contribute to this measurement. It aims at overcoming the different complex sources within the guidelines of organizational development processes. The construction of social systems (Senge, 1990) will be at close hand. For this the employees deal with the simplest elements of systems, whereby the use of adjacent and after-effects play an important role. Especially important in this context are the principles of causality and the understanding that results out of these. The smallest changes can cause large effects for the whole system, so that decisions and changes within the context of the whole system should be visualized and tested (Vester, 1990). Thl aim is to bring CE teams closer to a systematic mode of thinking and help their members bring the current problems and individual measures into the larger context, to visualize and take into consideration the diverse dependencies and interconnections, and to also counter for the assumption that complex problems can only be resolved in individual tasks. BeneJt and Expense of the Qualijcational

Elements

The essential communicative and methodical basis was laid down in all qualificational elements presented in this chapter. The third qualificational element picks on the previous systemic viewpoint of organizational development processes, which is a grip for the whole qualificational concept. From the close content interrelationship of the three qualificational elements, the

202

RICHARD DURST AND DIRK KABEL

essentiality becomes visible that these should not be conducted in large gaps. The separation of three blocks into two days each has practical reasons: l

l

a longer exemption of the participants from their daily work is often not possible; the intensity and complexity of qualificational contents has very high requirements in working capacities and absorption capabilities of every team member, so that a division into several units - for maximum learning success - makes sense.

For its use in managerial practice, this qualificational concept for the support and design of CE teams has been found as being successful. If one were to compare the requirements of the qualificational measures to the costs through time losses or insufficient team functionality in product development processes, investments in a broad accompaniment of teams - which work in timely and spatial in-continuity - can raise its success.

SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK With regard to the requirements of the more managerial concepts of Concurrent Engineering and Learning Organizations, a team model can be derived for cross-functional cooperation. The team model regards the three steps InputProcess-Output in detail for product development use. Thereby non-influential input conditions of the organization, the task and the individual characteristics can be viewed, just like the derived elements of teams themselves, namely its process and structure, and their effects on team effectiveness. This model gives the practically oriented hints for team design and simultaneously builds the basis for concrete measures for the design and improvement of CE team processes, which can be summarized in a checklist. As a first step a qualificational concept is worked out, which uses seminars and training-on-the-job mechanisms in order to support team processes. Further research requirements exist in areas where input conditions are to be designed at the organizational level, tasks and individuals. In this context it still has to be clarified how long-term feedback can be established as leaming loops, in order to use experiences from projects for effective team and organizational arrangement.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the Collaborative Research Center (SFB)

Cross-Functional

203

Teams

361 “Integrated Product and Process Design”, partial project A2 “Intra-firm Project Management in Integrated Product Development” conducted by the Laboratory for Machine Tools (WZL) and the Chair and Institute of Industrial Engineering and Ergonomics (LAW). Moreover we would like to express special thanks to Ms. Simone A&off, Julia Wolff and Mr. Vinod Viswanathan for their support in translating and proofreading this article.

REF’ERENCES Aggteleky, B., 8c Bajna, N. (1992). Pmjektplanung, ein handbuch fir jfihrungskrdifte [Project planning: A handbook for managers]. M&hen: Carl Hamer Verlag. Ahn, H. (1997). Optimienmg von produktentwicklungsprozessen. entscheidungsunterstitzung bei der umsetzung des simultaneous engineering [Optimization of product development processes: Support of decision making for the transfer of concurrent engineering]. Wiesbaden: Gabler, DUV. Alho, K., Lassenius, C., Risku, K., & Suloncn, R. (1995). Divide and delegate (DaD): An application for coordinating team activities. Global Perspective. Advances in Concurrem Engineering, Cm5 Conference (pp. 349-359). Lissabon/Helsinki: Concurrent Engineering. Allen, T. J. (1984). Managing the jlow of technology: Technology transfer and the dissemination of technological information within the R&D organization. Cambridge: MIT Press. Antons, K. (1996). Praxis &r gruppemfynamik [Practice of group dynamics]. (6th ed.). Giittingen: Hogrefe. Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolurion of coopemtion. New York: Basic Books. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday. Bern&s, S.. & Stanke, A. (1996). A concept for revitalisation of product development. In: H.-J. Bullinger & J. Warschat, @Is), Concurmnt SimulrMeow Engineering Systems: The Way to Succesful Product Developmenr. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag. Bbsch T. (1996). Beurteilung individueller reamfdlhigkeiren: Ein pmzeJorientierter ansatz [Assessment of individual team capability: A process oriented attempt]. Bamberg: DifoDruck. Bikson, T. K., Cohen, S. G., & Mankin, D. (1999). Information technology and high-performance teams. In: E. D. Sundstrom (Ed.), Supporting Work Team Effectiveness: Best Management Pmctices for Fostering High Performance (pp. 215-245). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Briidner, P. (1996). Erfolgsfaktor produktentwickhmg: Bericht aus einem industriearbeitskreis [Success factor product development]. In: P. Br6dner & H. Paul f&Is), &operative konsh&ion und entwicklung: Nurzungsperspektiven von CAD systemen [Cooperative design and development: Perspectives of CAD systems] (pp. 17-38). Mitnchen: Mering, H~~PP. Buggert, W., & Wielpiitz, A. (1995). Target costing: Grundlagen und umsetzung des zielkosrenmanagemenrs [Target costing: Basis and transfer of target costing management]. Miinchen, Wien: Hanser Verlag. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46,823-850.

RICHARD

DURST AND DIRK KABEL

Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429-452.

Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In: D. Cartwright & A. Zander @Is), Group Dynamics: Research and Theory (3rd ed., pp. 97-109). London: Tavistock Publications. Chen, G. (1996). The organizational management framework for implementation of concurrent engineering in the Chinese context. In: S. Ganesan (Ed.), Advances in Concurrent Engineering (pp. 165-171). CE 96 Conference Proceedings. University of Toromto, Ontario, Canada, August 26-28. Technomic Publishing, Basel. Cleetus, K. J. (1992). Definition of concurrent engineering. Technical Report CERC-TR-RN92403. West Virginia University. Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E. Jr., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-manging work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49.643-675. Denison, D. R., Hart, S. L., Kahn, J. A. (1996). From chimneys to cross-functional teams: Developing and validating a diagnostic model. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1005-1023. Diimer, D. (1998). Die logik des mzylingens [The logic to be unsuccessful]. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3, 197-202. Drttke, H. (1994). Communication and cooperation in the process chain: Some “Best Pm&e” myths. Proceedings of the 2nd International Pmduct Development Management Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 204-216. Durst, R., Heberer, J., Kabel, D., & Eschenberg, A. K. (1999). Qualifizienmg fiir untemehmenskooperation [Qualification for cooperation of companies]. In. H. Luczak, & M. Schenk (Eds), Kooperationen in theorie und praxis: Personale, aspekte bei koopemtionen industrieller dienstleistungen

organisatorische im mittelstand

una’ juristische

[Ccqerations in theory and practice: Personnel, organizational and legal aspects of cooperation for industrial services in SMEs] (pp. 92-105). Dusseldorf: VDI-Verlag. Esser, U. (1992). Gruppenarbeit: Theorie und praxis betrioblicher pmblemliisegruppen [TeamWork Theory and practice of problem solving teams in companies]. Gpladen: Leske und Budrich. Eversheim, W. (1995). Simultaneous engineering: Elfahrungen aus der industriefir die industrie [Concurrent engineering: Experiences from the industry]. Berlin: Springer. Eversheim, W. (1989). Simultaneous engineering: eine organisatorische chance [Concurrent engineering: An organizational chance]. In. Simultaneous engineering: Neue wege des pojektmanagements [Concurrent engineering: New ways of project management]. (VDI Berichte 758). Tagung Fmnkfurt a. M., 18.119.April, VDI Verlag, Dusseldorf 1989. Francis, D.,& Young, D. (1992). Mehr erjolg im team [More success in teams].Hamburg: Windmtihle. Frankenberger, E. (1997). Arbeitsteilige pmduktentwicklung: Empirische untersuchung und empfehlungen zur gruppenarbeit in der konstruktion [Cooperative product development: Empirical Studies and recommendation for team work in design]. Dilsseldorfz VDI. Fujimoto, T. (1989). Organizations for eflective product development: The case of the global automobile industry. Ann Arbor.

Cross-Functional

205

Teams

Gladstein Ancona, D. L., & Caldwell, D. (1990). Beyond boundary spanning: Managing external dependence in product development teams. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, I, 119-135. Gladstein Ancona, D. L., & Caldwell, D. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new pruduct

team performance.

Organisation

Science,

3,321-341.

Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science

Quarterly,

29.499-517.

R. A., & Salas, E. (1995). Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco. Guzzo, R., & Shea, G. P (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In: M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds), Ham&ok of Zndustrial and Organizational Psychology (3rd ed., pp. 269-313). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In: J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-HaJl. Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work and those that don’t. Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco: Headington Hill Hall. Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group task, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 45-99). New York: Academic Press. Heeg, F.-J. (1993). Pmjektmanagement. grundlagen derplanung und steuerung von betrieblichen problemlZiseprozessen [Project management: Basics of planning and steering of problem solving processes in companies] (2nd ed.). Miinchen: Carl Hanser Verlag. HeBen, H. I?, & Franke, H. (1998). Simultaneous engineering als managementkonzept fiir anlaufund jinderungsprozesse dargestellt am Beispiel der Audi AG [Concurrent engineering as management concept for start-up and change processes in the Audi AG]. In: P Horv&h & G. Fleig (Eds), Zntegrationsmanagementfir Neue Pmdukte [Integration management for new products] (pp. 167-l 80). Stuttgart: Sch8ffer-Poeschel. Hiigl, M. (1998). Teamarbeit in innovativen Prvjekten. EinJuJgriiJoen und Wrkungen neamwork in innovative projects: Spheres of influence and effects]. Wiesbaden: Gabler, DW. Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace Company. Jelinek, M. (1979). Znstitutionalizing inovation: A study of organizational learning. New York. Kab$ D., & Durst, R. (1999). Ei&ihrung von Planungsinseln bei der Bauprojektierung in der chemischen GroSindustrie [Introduction of planning islands in construction projects for chemical industry]. In: F. J. Heeg & G. Kleine @ds), Kommunikation und Kooperation Guzz.o,

Arbeitswissenschaftliche ationsbeziehungen

Aspekte

der

Gestaltung

von

Kommunikations-

und

Kooper-

und -systemen [Communication and cooperation: Aspects of industrial engineering for the design of communication and cooperation connections and systems]. (vol. 23, pp. 21 I-220).Aachen: Verlag Mainz. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams. Boston: Havard Business School Press. Klein, B. (1993). Concurrent Engineering strafft Entwicklungsprojekte [Concurrent engineering in development projects]. Planung und Prod&ion, 4Z,6-12. Krings, K. (1997). Reorganisationsbedingungen bei der systemorientierten Gestaltung von Produktionsplanung und -steuerung mit Fortschrittszahlen [Conditions of reorganization in the system oriented design of production planning and steering]. Aachen: Shaker. Laufenberg, L. (1995). Methodik zur integrierten Projektgestaltung fiir die situative Umsetzung des Simultaneous Engineering [Method for integrated project design in concurrent engineering] Aachen: Shaker.

206

RICHARD DURST AND DIRK KABEL

Levi, D., Slem, C. (1995). Team work in research and development organizations: The characteristics of successful teams. Inrernational Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 16, 29-42.

Litke, H. D.(1995). Prvjektmanagement. Methoden, Techniken, Verhaltensweisen [Project management: Methods, techniques and behaviouraJ insttuctions]. MUnchen, Wien: Hallser. Lock, D. (1997). Projektmanagement. Pmjektplanung, Projekt$nanzierung, Projektcontrolling, Computersysteme, Netqolantecbnik, NorJhllmodij?zierung, Vertrdge, Fallstudien [Project managementz: Project planning, project linancing, project controlling, computer systems, network analysis, emergency modification, contracts, case studies]. Wien: &rreuter. Luczak, H. (1998). Arbeirswissenschafl [Industrial Engineering and Ergonomics] (2nd. ed.). Berlin: Springer. Luczak, H., Ktings, K., & John, B. (1996). Analyse von Ftilen zur Implementiemng von Gruppenarbeit als ein Schritt zum Lcitbild Lemende Organisation [Analysis of implementation of team work as step to the model of 1earning organization]. In: J. Bullinger (Ed.),

Lemende

Organisationen

- Konzepre,

Methoden

und Erfahrungsberichte

[Leaming

organization: Concepts, methods, and experiences] (pp. 305-341). Stuttgart: SchaefferPoeschel. Luczak, H., &, Wimmer, R. (in press). Konzept zur Bewertung von Kooperationen als Instrument zur Untemehmensentwickhmg [Evaluation concept of cooperation as instrument to in der unremehmensororganizational development]. In: Wojda (Ed.), N eue entwicklungen ganisation: Innovative organisationsfonnen [New trends of company development: Innovative organizations]. Stuttgart: S&tier-Poeschel. McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief Znrroduction. New York: Holt, Rinaehart and Winston. McKnight, S., & Jackson, J. K. (1989). Simultaneous engineering saves manufacturing lead-time, costs and frustration. Industrial Engineering, 23,25-27. Melling, T., Lomax, J., Cather, H., & Koshal, D. (1996). The use of simulation techniques in the implementation of concurrent engineering in small and medium enterprises. In: Advances in Concurrent Engineering - CE% (pp. 352-359). Technomic Publishing Company, Basel. Militello, L. G., Kyne, M. M., Klein, G., Getchell, K., & Thorsden, M. (1999). A synthesized model of team performance. Zntemarional Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 3, 131-158. Mills, T. M. (1976). Soziologie der Gruppe [Sociology of groups] (5th Ed.). Miinchen. Minssen, H. (1999). Von der Hierarchic zum Diskms? Die Zumuhmgen der Selbstregulation [From hierarchy to discussion? The cheek of self-regulafion]. Miinchen und Mering: , Hampp. Molina, A., Al - Ashaab, A., Ellis, T. I. A., Young, R. I. M., & Bell, R. (1995). A Review of computer aided simultaneous engineering systems. Research in Engineering Design, 1, 38-63.

Miiller, K. (1987). Management fiir Zngenieure - Grundlagen, Techniken, Znstrumente [Management for engineers: Basises, techniques, instruments]. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer-Verlag. Nadler, D. A., 8z Tushman, M. L. (1988). Strategic linking: Designing formal coordination mechanisms. In: M. L. Tushman, R. Moore & L. William (Eds), Readings in the Management of Innovations (pp. 469-486). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

Cross-Functional

Teams

207

Negele, H., Fricke, E., & Wenzel, S. (1997). The House of “CE+” -A Systematic Approach to Comprehensive Engineering of Product Development Systems. In: Advances in Concurrent Engineering - CE97 (pp. 415-421). Basel: Technomic Publishing Company. Nieva, V. F., Fleishman, E. A., & R&k, A. M. (1978). Team dimensions: Their identity, their measurement, and their relationships. In: Advanced Research Resources Organization. Bethesda, MD. Olmstead, J. A. (1992). Barn% staflintegration. Institute for defense analysis (IDA), Paper No. P2560, Alexandria. Pawar, K. S. (1994). Organizational and managerial issues. In: C. S. Syan & U. Menon (Ed@. Concurrent Engineering, Concepts, Implementation and Practice (pp. 49-74). London: Chapman & Hall. Pennell, J., & Wm, R. (1989). Concurrent engineering: Practices and prospects. In: GWBECObl &J IEEE Global Tebxommunications Conference and Exhibition for the 1990s and Beyound (pp. 647-655). November 27-30, Dallas, TX Prasad, B. (1996). Concurrent engineering wheels. In: The Rapid Ptototyping of Application Specific Signal Processors (RASSP) Digest: The Road to Enterprise Integration, 3(l),

43-51. Probst, G, & Bttchel, B. (1994). Organisationales Lemen. Wettbewerbsvorteil der Zukunfi [Grganizational learning: Future benefits for competion]. Wiesbaden: Gabler. Pugh, S. (1991). Total design: Integrated methods for successful product engineering. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley. Rechtien, W. (1992). Angewandte Gruppen&uunik Ein Lehrbuch fiir Sttafierende und Praktiker [Applied group dynamics: A textbook for students and experts]. Mtlnchen: QuintessenzVerhig. Schiepeck, G, & Manteufel, A. (1998). Kooperation und Kompetenzentwicklung in Systemspielen [Cooperation and competence development in system games]. IX E. Ardelt-Gattinger, H. Lechner & W. S&log1 (Eds), Gruppendynamik Anspruch und wirklichkeit a% Arbeit in Gruppen [Group dynamics: Demands and reality of team work] (pp. 40-51). Gattingen: Verlag fllr Angewandte Psychologie. Schttl, N. (1996). Auf die richtige Umsetzung kommt es an [The importance of correct transfer]. , G&e Management, 44,48-5 1. Schulz-Ha& S., & Frey, D. (1998). Wie der Hals in die Schlinge kommt. Fehlentscheidungen in Gmppen [How the neck comes in the noose]. In: E. Ardelt-Gattinger, H. Lechner & W. Schliigl @de), Gruppendynamik Anspruch und Wirklichkeit der Arbeit in Gruppen [Group dynamics: Demands and reality of team work] (pp. 139-158). Giittingen: Verlag ftlr Angewandte Psychologie. Seitz, H. J. (1995). Vorsprung durch kurze Ptoduktlebenszyklen. Simultaneous engineering [Leading with short product life times: Concurrent engineering]. Landsberg: Modeme Industrie. Senge, F! M. (1990). The fifrh discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York Currency Doubleday. Simonse, W. L., & van Eijnatten, F. M. (1996). Cross-functional teams as self-directed teams? In: Proceedings

of the

3rd

International

Product

Development

Management

Conference

(pp. 635-650). Fontainebleau, France. Staehle, W. (1994). Management: Eine verhaltenswissenschajiliche Perspektive [Management: A perspective of behaviour science] (7th ed.). Munchen: Verlag Franz Vahlen.

RICHARD DURST AND DIRK KABEL Stahl, J. (1999). Entwicklung einer Methoae zur Integrierten Arbeitsgestaltung und Personalplanung im Rahmen von Concurrent Engineering [Development of a method for integrated job

design and personnel planning in concurrent engineering]. Aachen: Shaker. Stahl, J., Lucxak, H., Langen, R., Week, M., Klonaris, I’., & F’feifer, T. (1997). Concurrent engineering of work and production systems. European Journal of Operations Research, loo,

319398.

Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. I’., & Futrell, D. (1990). Workteams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120-133. Syan. C., & Memion, U. (1994). Concurrent engineering: Concepts, implementation andpractice. London: Chapman & Hall. Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., & Salas, E. (1992). Team Building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. In: K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, Theory, and Research in IndustraUOrganizational Psychology (pp. 117-153). North Holland, Amsterdam. Thorn, N. (1973). Zur Leistungsfahigkeit der F’rojekt- Matrix-Organisation me efficiency of project matrix organization]. Industrielle Otganisation, 42.42-48. Tuckman, B. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Otganisation Studies,

2,419-427.

Vester, F. (1990). Unsere Welt - ein vernetztes System [Our world: A network system] (6th. ed.). Mtlnchen: DTV. Warschat, J. (1996). Concurrent und Simultaneous Engineering [Concurrent and Simultaneous Engineering]. In: H.-J. Bullinger, & H.-J. Wamecke (Eds), Neue Organisationsformen im Chtternehmen [New types of organizations in companies] (pp. 549564). Berlin: Springer. Wellhofer, F’. R. (1993). Gruppendynamik und soziales Lernen. Theorie und Praxis der Arbeit mit Gruppen [Croup dynamics and social learning: Theory and practice of working with teams]. Stuttgart: Enke. Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B. (1992). Revolutionizing product development. quantum leaps in speed, eficiency, and quality. New York Free F’ress. Wildemann, H. (1992). Simultaneous engineering als Baustein ftlr Just-in-Tie in Forschung, Entwickhmg und Konstruktion [Concurrent engineering as element of just-in-time in research, development and design]. VDI-Z, 134, 1823. Wimmer, R., & Orban, l? (1998). Flex&l durch Selbstorganisation. Selbstorganisierende Organisationseinheiten als Instrument zur Bewab.i@ng von Komplexitit und Dynamik lFlexibilty with self organization: Self-organized organizations as instrument to manage complexity and dynamic]. FIR + IAW Mitteilungen, 2,5. Wolf, M. L. J. (1995). F’rojektmanagement bei Klein- und Mittelprojekten [F’roject management in small and medium projects], Tei12. Planung und Ptoduktion, 43,9-14. Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Koos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York: Rawson.

209

Cross-Functional Teams

APPENDIX Checklist for the Design of Effective Concurrent Engineering Teams 1. Input

Considering Team Work, as a system of effectiveness, is a function of input variables. 1. I, Organization 1.1.1. Resources and Infrastructure l

l

l l

The present technology, equipment, and materials allow the execution of tasks given to the team. The offices of the participants are situated nearby, or a tele-co-operation tool is accessible. The information system provides all task specific information. Personell capacity and composition allows for successful fulfillment of tasks.

1.1.2. Training

. There is a possibility for the team to receive consultancy by specialists. An individual supply of training, supporting team work is offered to the team members. There also is an offer of team trainings and methodical oriented training. l

l

1.1.3. Management Involvement

Management supports team work. Gontrolling and efficiency feedback, given by management is based on clearly defined task related objectives. . Autonomy and range of competence of the team including the project manager as a team member is clearly fixed. A team related reward system based on the given objectives is established.

l l

l

1.1.4. Organizational Determinants l l l

Organizational culture and organizational climate supports team work. Served markets, competitors and customers are known to all team members. Organizational strategy is clearly defined and known to all team members.

1.1.5. Boundary Management

The following questions concern the collaboration of the team with all persons or organizational units beyond its organizational borders.

RICHARD DURST AND DIRK KABEL l l

l

Relations to other teams are clarified. The integration of interests of customers, suppliers, and partners is clearly defined. Relations to line departments are also clearly defined.

1.2. Task l

l

l

l l

The task type including partial tasks which are required to design the product and process as a whole is clearly defined. Task complexity including extent, variety and interdependencies between partial tasks is clear. Deadlines, milestones, budgets, and other objectives are documented in a schedule, submitted to the team. The importance of the team task is known by all team members. Objectives regarding the approach and the procedure of task fulfillment are documented and known to all team members.

1.3. Individual 1.3.1. Knowledge (cognitive)

Knowledge is the sum of organized and learned information, required for task execution. l

l

l

l

All team members together have expert knowledge, that is required by the task. All team members together have the methodical knowledge that is required by the task. Every team member has suffiicent learning, thinking, and problem solving abilities. Important and time critical knowledge is represented redundantly in the team.

1.3.2. AttitudesBehavipr l

l l l

l l

(affective)

All team members have a high initiative to fulfil the given task, Team Work. The demand for quality of products and processes is high in the Risk-taking and realism are balanced in the team. All team members have a sense of responsibility, especially manager/team leader. All team members have a high level of social competence. Team members are all able to solve conflicts in the team and accept feedback.

and support team. the project

to give and

Cross-Functional Teams

211

1.3.3. Skills (sensunwtoric)

Skills are learned behavior and dexterity for task fulfihnent. They only appear i.e. in fastly and error free using a specific CAD system. 1.3.4. Physis (physiologic)

Physiological aspects like fitness, age, gender, and race play a subordinate role in this checklist because there are no ideal combinations defined for a CETeam. 2. Team Criteria 2.1. Team Structure

Team structure includes more static criteria that changes on a long-term basis. 2.1.1. Composition l

l l

l

l l

The team size is 4-12 persons. Larger teams are divided according to the produkt structure. Roles within the team are clarly defined and known by all members. Heterogenity in the team results only from task and skill oriented composition. The team exists relativly durable, that means as long as the CE project is running. Change of team personnel is avoided. Multiple loadings af team members are minimized. The member belong to one functional department and ideally only to one CE-Team.

2.1.2. Project Manager/Team Leader

The project manager is the team leader and has a co-operative leadership style: He supports the team initiatively and as a reaction to inquiries of the team. He manages information flow in such manner, that necessary ones are available to all team members. The feedback behavior of the project manager is objective and well-balanced between criticism and praise. Project manager has a certain autonomy and margin within objectives agreed upon by top management: he is responsible for team decisions and represents the team as its speaker. l l

l

l

2.1.3. Arrangements l

The team has arranged for own rules and norms, which all team members agree with.

212 l

l

l

l

RICHARD

DURST AND DIRK KABEL

Decision structure in the team is defined: all members participate in decisions, it is defined in which cases consensus or majorities is required to find a decision, the project manager can put a veto on team decisions. The team has a certain autonomy and margin to fulfill partial tasks within objectives agreed by the project manager. The team has an extensive autarky of resources, which means that it can manage its given resources independently from other organizational units. Team members agree upon a common goal system, including objectives agreed to by top management, team related goals, and individual objectives of every team member

2.2. Team Process

The team process includes all components of the team that faces dynamic change during the process of integrated product and process development. 2.2.1. C3-Process

C3 is the short term for the triple co-operation, coordination and as a medium of communication: Communication within the team is characterized by transparency and information sharing considering the scope and quality of information needed for task execution. The coordination of partial tasks leads to a clear structure of work and task distribution in the team. Resources are shared and distributed in consensus. Cross-functional co-operation allows top managment and project managers to give feedback concerning task execution, by the team as a whole. Decision making within the team proceeds efficiently and goal-directed. The team controls itself in such a manner, that demands for process performances are defined based on the objectives agreed upon by top management. Furthermore differences between objectives and performance are identified and measures are realized within the given margin. The team is running a $ontinuous improvement process. l

l

l

l l

l

2.2.2. Development Process

The development process includes all activities which are directly related to planning, draft, design, and realization of the new product and the accessory production process. Planning and realization of clearly differentiated activities are conducted by the team. The team uses special methods for creativity and problem solving to generate alternative solutions for features of the new product. l

l

Cross-Functional Teams l

l

213

The team agrees upon a clear differentiation of partial functions and assembly groups of the new product. Team members plan a commonly accepted strategy and procedure for task execution.

2.2.3. Personal Interaction This element discusses social elements of the team spirit and team climate that affect the development process in an indirect way: All team members are aware of the importance of their partial tasks and the team task. Cohesion is high because of the strong identification of the team members with the team and its task and because of direct work and social relation between the team members. A climate of trust and mutual support determines daily work in the team. Cooperation within the team is influenced by equal weighting of individual inputs and acceptance and understanding of other members tasks. The team is an internal feedback process which solves conflicts and produces consensus. l

l

l l

l

3. output Measuring the effectiveness of task execution in a CE-Team requires the choice of unequivocal criteria. This criteria should not only measure product- and process related effectiveness but also organizational success within the team and in its surrounding environment. 3.1. Efectiveness of Task Fuljlment All,criteria of effectiveness are measured with characteristics that show the percentage of fulfillment of given objectives. The questions are based on a comparison of development without teams and a development in teams: 3. I. 1. Quality Criteria The number of errors is reduced significantly. Customer satisfaction has increased. The fulfillment of functional requirements of the product is maximized. The safety of the product is given according to legal provisions. The adherence to agreed deadlines and milestones has been improved. Time-to-Market has decreased significantly. l l l l l l

3.1.2. Cost Criteria The sum of development costs and production costs as a whole have been decreased. l

214 l

l

RICHARD

DURST AND DIRK KABEL

Profitability and Return of Investment of the new product is better than that of its predecessors. productivity of the team has been maximized.

3.2. Psycho-social Outcomes 3.2.1. Organizational Outcomes l

There is a success of learning, innovation and organizational development

3.2.2. Team Outcomes l

Viability of the team in a sense of innovation and development at team level has increased.

3.2.3. Individual l

Outcomes

Average motivation and satisfaction rates of team members could be stepped up.

VIRTUALTEAMSAND 0RGANIZATIONS:USINGCOMPLEX SYSTEMSLOGICTOUNDERSTAND EMERGINGORGANIZATIONAL FORMS Janice A. Black and Sandra Edwards ABSTRACT Information Age (Davidow & Malone, 1992) is here and critically impacts work life. Such work systems have the characteristics of complex systems which move between ordered states near attractor points and disordered states. Some ordered states have bifurcation points where order is redefined and a qualitative change of the system occurs. We suggest that such points have occurred repeatedly in our economy over the past decade due to,advances in information technology. As our economy moves from one stable state to another; the organizing rules change. Our assessment reveals that virtual teams or organizations emerge as a logical form for organizing. This new form also meets Brown and Eisenhardt’s (1998) call for a new organizing form. A new set of organizing rules is derived from a literature review and should facilitate understanding boundary issues, time issues and information management for practitioners.

The Information Age (Davidow & Malone, 1992) or “Knowledge Age” (Brown & Duguid, 2000) is well established with the rapidly increasing use of high Virtual Teams, Volume 8, pages 127-147. 8 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. ISBN: O-7623-0&%3-5 127

128

JANICE A. BLACK

AND SANDRA

EDWARDS

technology in all arenas of our lives. The use of advanced communication and information technology explicitly acknowledges the need for networks among people simply to accomplish the more complex tasks facing workers today. Advances in electronic connectedness have increased the importance of other connections. Evidence of this is found in the proliferation of teams and organizing around teams (a trend since the late 1980s - Miles & Snow, 1992; Townsend, De Marie & Henrickson, 1996). Furthermore, the impact of faster communication processes and increased computing power has resulted in teams interacting more and more through technology and thus creating virtual teams (Townsend et al., 1996). Virtual here is used to mean communication technology facilitated enactment of activities that used to require a physical presence to complete (Davidow & Malone, 1992; Oravec, 1996; Townsend et al., 1996; Wang, 1997). Thus virtual teams are teams whose work is facilitated by technology and allowed them to replace physical presence with a virtual or digital presence. However, there has also been a shift in how organizations operate that goes beyond the obvious convenience of advanced communications equipment. Indeed, below the instantaneous written communication of e-mail that transcends national borders and perhaps more importantly time zones (Soloman, 1998) and under all the trappings of the Information/Knowledge Age, is a fundamental shift in relationships and connectiveness that, is the unseen trail and strength of productivity today (Allcom, 1997; Vaill, 1989; Wang, 1997). This change argues that organizational scientists, researchers and practitioners may need to re-gear to be able to manage change in organizations of the 21st century. Virtual teams and virtual organizations represent new organizational forms that have emerged to facilitate technological demands. How viable are these new organizational forms? Are they a fad or a feature of the new competitive environment of the 2 1st Century? This chapter examines these questions and begins by considering the virtual form through the lenses of complexity theory and chaos theory (Cramer, 1993). Following a brief introduction to complexity theories, the paper examines the use of teams in the traditional view of the economy and in this new technology-assisted economy. It concludes with the implications of complexity theory on organizational structuring.

COMPLEX SYSTEMS AND A FRAMEWORK We begin our discussion of complexity theories by presenting what is meant by a complex system. We translate bifurcations into organizational life and suggest several critical points from the recent past. Following this we present a

virtual Teamsand 0rganiz.ation.s

129

framework of influence on organizing logic and organizational forms. We conclude with presenting a logical technology-assisted organizational form. Complex Systems and Complexity Theory

Please note that a complex system is not the same thing as a complicated system (Devaney, 1993). A complicated system can have many parts and subparts with a wide range of linear relationships and look very intricate if laid out as a map. But such systems have a static pattern of interaction. A complex system can look very simple but have non-linear relationships like a feedback loop or a learning curve. Complex systems thus have changing or dynamic patterns including times during which no pattern is evident. A system with non-linear relationships between its parts, is dynamic until it reaches a state of equilibrium (Cramer, 1993; Devaney, 1993). Dynamic thus indicates that the parts may change or the relationships may change as well as being able to use and/or produce something. At equilibrium the system neither uses nor produces anything. For a living organism, this means that the system is dead. The farther from equilibrium that a system is the more possibilities for change exist. More possibilities for change mean that more dynamism is possible. Most complex systems are in a far-from-equilibrium state and so are dynamic (Cramer, 1993). Such systems are predictable only over the short term (Cramer, 1993; Hunt, 1995). Predictable change implies that there is an underlying evident order. Such ordered stability happens typically when the system is in close proximity to a attractor. An attractor is something not necessarily a part of the system that is found where the ordered states are. It may be a by-product of the system’s operations or it may simply be a convenient marker for us as we attempt to understand why order exists in a specific locale. Because they are not predictable and are difficult to ascertain any overt influence, they are often called strange attractors (Devaney, 1993). These strange attractors act as order coalescent points for the complex system (Devaney, 1993; Hunt, 1995). By order coalescent point, we mean that a pattern emerges at a locale after much iterations of the system. Such patterns imply not only the presence of an attractor but a particular attractor. Attractors come in many types (Favre, Guitton, Guitton, Lichnerowicz & Wolff, 1995). These range from attractors that are independent of time (this means that they are in an unchanging state over time) to those that have a regular repeating pattern over time to those whose pattern changes slightly as it repeats irregularly.

JANICE A. BLACK AND SANDRA EDWARDS

An interesting type of attractor is one whose revealing pattern includes a bifurcation point (see Fig. 1). At a bifurcation point, the system has options on how to organize with that choice then determining future patterns. The figure shows an ordered state with a predictable pattern reaching such a point and having two choices. By choosing the top choice it progresses along until it reached another critical point where again two choices are available. By choosing the bottom choice the system continues on past the point where the second bifurcation cane into play if they had chosen the top choice. A math example would be a non-linear relationship that included a square root. Because of a square root term in the description of the relationship, the equation will have to include two possibilities - the positive root and the negative root. Once you choose to work with either root, the equation may have very different results. Thus each bifurcation point represents a critical value where equally viable alternatives exist but which then contribute to the forming of a new attractor with a different order pattern. While the choices do not have to be limited to two, the term bifurcation is used to indicate all such critical choice points. In other words, it is used to indicate all such critical points where there is a qualitative change in the system (Favre et al., 1995) due to a choice taken. For our purposes, the choice must result in the nature of the order in the system being different from its earlier state in order to qualify as a bifurcation point. Indeed, one can use the existing rules of order for a system and still end up at a bifurcation point with the system poised on the edge of entering chaotic behavior (Cramer, 1993). It only takes three bifurcations before a complex system becomes unpredictable and turbulent (i.e. change and multiple possibilities are prevalent) (Favre et al., 1995). The area of time during these iterations (while a system is moving toward a chaotic state but before it reaches true chaos) has been termed ‘the edge of chaos.’ (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998; Cramer, 1993). Organizational theorists have begun applying much of this understanding of complexity theory and chaos theory to organizational issues. Many academic and popular articles and books are now available (see the special issues in Organization Science and Strategic Management Journal, for book reviews on over 30 popular press books see Emergence, Volume 1, Number 2, 1999). Our Business Economic System as a Complex System and Bifircations

Why have we seen the increased presence of teams and virtual teams in particular? We assert that researchers and practitioners are intuitively responding to shifts in the rules of order of the business economic system. For example, Brown & Eisenhardt (1998) envisioning of turbulent markets as

Initial ordered state of a system, S i i i

;

~

.~

1 [

+

w

s. 1 Qualitatively different ordered states 2 ; of the system after bifurcation point !$ lo ; 2, s” systems

Fig. I. Changes in Ordered States of a System.

Qualitatively different ordered states of the system after bifurcation point 1, S’ systems

Critical Bifurcation Points

132

JANICE A. BLACK

AND SANDRA

EDWARDS

representing an edge of chaos helps us understand some of the shifts in the order rules that are occurring. For many years the rules of order in business economic systems remained stable, if not relatively unchanging (Merrifield, 1999). However, in the nature of complex systems, the economy through following the ‘rules’ for that order hit several bifurcation points (see Fig. 2). Furthermore, these changes in the rules occurred in close order enhancing the effect of these changes on the system. We suggest that these points correspond to the following general dates (while mathematically such points may be at a specific point, in social systems such points tend to encompass a period of time rather than one single point in time). Bifurcation

Introduction of andi Relentless/ Advancement in! Computers!

Rapid Assimilation of High Tech into Multiple Markets

i i I /

Points

Development of Advanced Communication Technology

/ : I i

Pursuit of I Innovation in i Varied Markets i

Fig. 2. Suggested Bifurcation Points in BusinessMarkets.

@-tual Teamsand Oaanizations

133

The first bifurcation, “Introduction of and Relentless Advancement in Computers,” was triggered with the introduction of personal computers circa 1979. Within the next decade (1980s) we see the next bifurcation point occurring - “Rapid Assimilation of High Tech into Multiple Markets.” The third bifurcation point occurred in the early 1990s. This triggering event was the “Development of Advanced Communication Technology.” And the final bifurcation point that we suggest, which happened in the late 199Os, was the “Pursuit of Innovation in Varied Markets.” Complexity theory acknowledges that after three bifurcation points, previously ordered systems will become unpredictable to someone at the beginning point or at time 1 (Cramer, 1993). Now as the old sense of order no longer can be relied upon to provide the fundamental decision rules, the agents seek a new set of fundamental rules to apply. Complexity theory and complex systems are good candidates for providing a new set of fundamental rules. Complexity theory when addressing complex systems explicitly acknowledges the difference in the parts making up the whole but that the whole is not directly decomposable into each constituent part (Hunt, 1995). Furthermore, it acknowledges the connected nature of these parts (Anderson, 1999). However, the patterns of connection are not easily discerned and, furthermore, they change. This change is due to mutual causation, feedback loops and other non-linear cause relationships and results in, to a greater or lesser extent, a constant state of flux in the patterns. Given these qualities, complexity theory has an intuitive appeal to the business practitioner (See special issue of Emergence, l(2), 1999). Organizing Logic and Organizational Forms

Organizational theorists seek to identify viable organizational forms that will promote organizational survival and growth (Lewin, Long & Carroll, 1999). Miles and Snow (1992) summarized the history of major organizational forms and noted that much failure in the use of organizational forms resulted from the inappropriate extension of a form beyond the logic that supported the creation of the organizational form in the first place. They noted that the logic behind the functional form developed in the early part of the century was focused upon a centrally coordinated, specialization orientation with the primary application being the efficient production of standardized goods and services. The logic behind the divisional form, which came into prominence in the 1940s and 195Os, was the coupling of divisional autonomy with centrally controlled performance evaluation and resource allocation that resulted in the primary application of related diversification by product or region. The matrix form, which developed during the 1960s and 1970s had logic based on a variation of

134

JANICE A. BLACK AND SANDRA EDWARDS

the functional form, centrally coordinated specialization with balance among the components to produce mutually beneficial allocations of resources. Miles and Snow (1992) found three varieties of the emerging network form of organizations, appearing in the 1980s each of which had its own dominant logic. One such form was a stable network. A stable network had a variation of the functional organization logic: centrally coordinated specialization with a small set of independent parts that maintained their competitive fitness by serving firms outside the network. This network form, they maintained, was designed to be effective in predictable markets and was aligned along a given product or service value chain. The second network form was one where the element parts (for example; a given service value chain)were not independent firms but commonly held by the organizing firm. Still, they, too, would maintain their competitive fitness by serving firms outside the organizing firm. The final network form stressed organizing along the value chain and emphasized the independent nature of the parts so that the actual network was seen as a temporary alliance from a large pool of potential partners. Each of these forms then has specific applications and means to create failure (Miles & Snow, 1992). While each of these forms addresses ways of allocating scarce resources, none of these forms really addressed the change in organizing philosophy brought about by examining our environment from a complex system orientation. Suggested Logical Technology-Assisted Organizational Form

To survive and thrive in our current markets, organizations are operating at the edge of chaos (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998). Brown and Eisenhardt (1998) use ‘edge of chaos’ to refer to the point between two attractors where neither set of rules dominate. They identify one attractor as the Bureaucratic Trap and the other as the Chaos Trap. The Bureaucratic Trap is reflective of the system structures that require more and more formalization; more and more formalized rules, structures, and processes; and more narrowly channeled information flows to handle the increased structure. The Chaos Trap is reflective of systems that emphasize a breaking of all obvious rules with very little to no structure and communication that is undirected and hence appears random. Brown and Eisenhardt (1998) call for: (a) organizational forms that have neither too little nor too much formal, rule-bound, structure; and (b) organizations that have an adaptive culture with semi-structures and which use real time communications. To do this, they suggest that management needs to promote activity that fosters change in the context of a few strict rules. Specifics of the change will be determined from emerging events. Such a firm will need access to real-time fact-based communication for all involved.

135

virtual Teamsand Organizations

We suggest that the increased use of networked teams and virtual network organizational forms is an emerging organization form that meets Brown and Eisenhardt’s 1998 call for a form to compete on the edge of chaos. Furthermore, we suggest it is an example of the system’s change from one set of organizing rules to another and a response to a bifurcation point in the market and the resulting emergence of a new attractor and stable pattern. To develop this point, we begin by addressing what we mean by teams and virtual teams.

GROUPS, TEAMS

& VIRTUALITY

In this section, we define the terms group, team, and virtual. Building from this we conclude by defining virtual groups, virtual teams and by extension virtual organizations. Traditional Definitions Of Groups and Teams

A group is made up of individuals who interact with each other and are interdependent in some way over time (McGrath, 1984; Ilgen, Major, Hollenbeck & Sego, 1993). Membership in a group is often self-initiated and can evolve as people self-select in or out. Work groups and teams, while meeting the basic definition of a group, are also task or goal directed (Hackman, 1990; Ilgen et al., 1993). Team membership may be self-selected or may be the result of direction from one in an authority position over the team members but in either case, each team member is aware of who the set of members are for that team. Individuals typically are members of many teams and no’ one team has exclusive rights to that individual’s participation (McGrath, 1984). In business, teams have been a common way of accomplishing organizational goals. Such teams have been given certain directives and goals to accomplish and each member contributes to that end. Teams typically would meet face-to-face in a convenient location as often as necessary to accomplish the task set before them. DeJnition of Virtual

The advent of faster communication systems (computer processors, cellular phones, etc.) has facilitated the development of a ‘virtual’ world. Like others in this area (Davidow & Malone, 1992; Oravec, 1996; Townsend et al., 1996; Wang, 1997), we use ‘virtual’ to mean the technology facilitated enactment of activities that used to require a physical presence to complete. For example,

JANICE A. BLACK AND SANDRA EDWARDS

Viacom’s Human Resources Group created an international personnel web page that allowed previously autonomous HR professionals under the Viacom umbrella access to human resource information on a real time basis (Solomon, 1998). Virtual teams are groups of people working to accomplish a task even though they may be separated in time and space (Geber, 1995; Oravec, 1996). Beyond being composed of the actual individuals involved, the virtual team is composed of the traces of the technology-mediated communication and decision making processes. This includes such things as physical copies of the transmissions of the group members, associated statistics, imagery and sound reproductions of the group processes and the like (Oravec, 1996). Virtual organizations are created when organizations design linkages with each other and critical environmental actors much the same way that virtual teams link individuals (Maloff, 1995). Voss (1996) noted that virtual organizations have been developing for the past couple of decades. More than 200 examples of variations on the “virtual” theme have been discovered in MIT’s Sloan School’s 21st Century Initiative. From this group of organizations, Voss noted several key characteristics: (1) Organizations have a shared vision and common protocol of cooperation, (2) Organizations clustered around their core competencies, (3) Work is done jointly in teams of core-competence groups to implement activities in a holistic approach throughout the value chain, (4) Organizations process and diffuse information in real time allowing for fast decision making, (5) Delegation in the organizations tends to come from the bottom up whenever opportunities to attain economics of scale are noticed. Merrifield (1999) identified, in addition to the real-time coordination of technical, legal, financial, marketing and production functions, the need for skills in environmental scanning and information acquisition; pattern recognition; advanced screening and benchmarking; sensitivity to change analysis; market segment analyses; and critical path analyses. These imply a need for collaborative arrangements. It is important to note that for the effective running of such organizations, trust in partnering organizations is important. Such trust cannot developed solely via electronic means (Voss, 1996). Many organizations have occasional travel for trust building sessions planned. An example can be seen in IBM’s development of its virtual teams. IBM first develops a “team” by using “Teamroom” and “Workroom” programs in conjunction with 2 day, on-site, face-to-face, teambuilding sessions. After these sessions, the virtual teams

~rtual Teamsand Organizations

137

begin operations (Pickard, 1998). So being a virtual organization does not preclude the using of traditional business methods, however, the dominant method of doing business is heavily dependent upon advanced information technology.

EVOLVING BUSINESS ECOLOGY Recognize that with a dynamic system, change will be present. Change over time may be incremental or evolving or it may be revolutionary. This section addresses the evolving nature of the business system. We begin by examining traditional system relationships. From that base, we expand into examining virtual system relationships. Traditional System Relationships

Much of the literature and research today is implicitly based on the changes and responses that happen within a given system structure and leaves the change of that structure as an exogenous feature of the model (Black & Farias, 2000; Lewin et al., 1999). Thus, traditionally the set of decision rules used in working within a system were being directly applied to the short term instances of adaptation. The assumption is that the system structure was going to be around in a stable form for an indefinite time into the future. The implication is that boundaries could be determined and set for the system; that the critical factors within the system could be identified; and that rules that predicted how those sub-elements would respond in the future could be determined and applied. This in turn meant that system changes could also accurately be predicted. While cvmplicated, such systems were not complex. The set of organizational forms reviewed by Miles and Snow were basically developed from this traditional logic base. Virtual System Relationships

We suggest that the series of technological bifurcation points recently experienced by the U.S. (and, indeed, many markets around the world) has indeed created an environment that is qualitatively different than the traditional system environment described above. The Information Age market environment allows for both rapid communications across geographic areas and rapid responses to such information dispersal. It allows for the emergence of the virtual system. Some examples include the daily operations of many organizations such as Nike, America West, Puma, and Nortel, among others. Nike was one of the first

138

JANICE A. BLACK AND SANDRA EDWARDS

organizations that took advantage of advanced communication and logistic technology to create a global network of organizations to produce athletic shoes instead of keeping all the work inside the organization (Miles & Snow, 1992). America West Vacations utilizes telecommuting travel agent professionals to sell and manage its vast vacation package program (Caldwell & Gambon, 1996). Puma has utilized advanced communication technology to coordinate and facilitate the globally diverse network of organizations used in their production of athletic shoes (Voss, 1996). Nortel (Northern Telecommunications) is well known for its use of advanced technology to facilitate Workgroup efforts via the use of interactive presentations that can be modified from remote sites as the presentation is being made (Solomon, 1998). However, this virtual laced marketplace requires organizing efforts that move beyond efficiency and control to ones that emphasize the ability to spot opportunities (including ones that the firm creates) and gather the needed players to take advantage of those opportunities (Dess, Lumpkin & McGee, 1999; Werther, 1999). Change and rapid change both of the marketplace and the organization is about the only constant in such environments. These systems may appear very chaotic and complex.

IMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZING IN THE VIRTUAL SYSTEM INFLUENCED ENVIRONMENT ’ Chaotic systems can arise merely from following deterministic rules (Cramer, 1993). When the business system bifurcated and the rules shifted, the traditional rules applied so long as the system was relatively close to the old ‘attractor.’ However, the longer the system moves down this new trajectory, the less effective the old rules will be. While we are operating on the edge of chaos and until a new stable pattern coalesces, different rules are appropriate. In such conditions, a culture of frequent change through the use of a few strict rules and open communication is called for (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998). Brown and Eisenhardt (1998) suggest this requires structuring around the few critical rules of: (1) set priorities, deadlines, responsibilities; and (2) target real-time measurement of movement towards the stated goals. This set of critical rules is very familiar to those who work in self-directed work teams (Costley, Santana-Malgoza & Todd, 1994; Ilgen et al., 1993). Thus some of the rules effective for today’s environment at the organizational level have already been experienced at the team level. When the composition of these teams is able to be determined in advance, team members can be recruited into an organization or project and a co-located team formed. However, as is

Virtual Teams and Organizations

139

often the case today, when the needed composition is determined only shortly before the team’s efforts are needed, then it is reasonable to utilize the virtual team to assemble the needed players. Furthermore, entire companies may be created in this virtual fashion if future changes are anticipated that would require the revision of the composition of the firm (Byrne, 1993; Dess et al., 1995; Dess, Lumpkin & McGee, 1999; Hamel, 199 1; Quinn & Hilmer, 1994; Rothwell, 1992; Tully, 1993; Werther, 1999). Given that today’s environment is in a constant state of change, it is also reasonable to assume that the virtual team and organization is a form of organizing that is getting reinforced. A comparison of several definitions of virtual and/or network firms with Brown and Eisenhardt’s model of an “operating at the edge of chaos” firm is found in Table 1. Brown and Eisenhardt (1998) also suggest that we need open communication from all involved. This is to facilitate the transference of copious amounts of information over a wide but bounded range of topics. From the team literature, we can see that cross-functional teams and network organizations that utilize specialists in communication with each other are a way to get meaningful information (Dess et al., 1999; Werther, 1999). Again we see the reinforcement of the explicit use of teams and advanced computing. This mixture often leads to virtual teams due to the interconnections of the system. It may also result in virtual organizations as firms attempt to meet the rapidly changing demands of the business environment (Allcom, 1997; Lipnack & stamps, 1999). The final trait needed by organizations operating at the edge of chaos is that of real-time communications (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998). The boundaries of that communication are determined by the tasks on hand and include such things as operational issues, customer issues, and competitor moves. The use of electronic communication and information processing devices also increases our ability to handle larger amounts of information in shorter periods of time (Stoddard, Jarvenpaa & Littlejohn, 1996). The increased use of electronic communication devices also facilitates the use of virtual teams composed of members of various stakeholder groups to address the above communication needs (Wang, 1997). It is evident that the virtual organization and the network organization structurally address and provide opportunities for the enactment of the rules suggested by Brown and Eisenhardt (1998). This implies that network organizations are a logical outgrowth of the change in dominant logic in the operations of current markets in the Information Age. This further suggests that we will continue to see their use and development in the foreseeable future.

Title of Form

Competing on the Edge -

Network Organizations

Brown and Eisenhardt, 1998

Miles and Snow, 1992 l

Just enough formalization to be effective and specific to needs. Boundaries emerge or are determined by task, operations, customers and competitors

I Independent network of firms bringing specific excellence to temporary firm

l

l

Org. Structure Characteristics

l

l

among

all

members of system Occur in real time

Open

Information Flows

l

l

l

Adaptable from disbanding of temporary organization and recreating a new one better suited to current needs

Adaptable organization capable of making sense of environment Rules support and orientation to change

Flexibility

Comparison of Characteristics of Explicit Complex System Organizations and Virtual

Source

Table 1.

l

l

l

l

l

Contractual relationships between firms

fums

Stable membership within member

Few deadlines for most critical points. Clear responsibilities Goals linked to activities and mission

Relationship Rules

Organizations.

P E

!z

8

r?a

k7;1

E

3 zi 8 9

Virtual Organization

Modular organizations, virtual organizations & boundary-less organizations

Voss, 1996

Dess, Lumpkin and McGee, 1999 filltlS

Modular components of core and outsourced

l

Internally fluid, ambiguous, and deliberately illdesigned tasks and roles * Heavy utilization of teams between and within firms

l

l

l

l

l

Common vision, goal or standard of d cooperation around core competencies which use network of teams Delegate from the bottom up Use a spirit of entrepreneurship and risk-taking Functional excellence Organizational pattern of cooperation, communication and coordination. l

l

l

l

fiIl lS

Open communications vertically and laterally within

Openand Spontaneous communications Process and distribute information in real time across network of teams

.

l

l

l

l

Flexibility between firms from forming and re-forming contractual mlationships Internal flexibility due to lack of restricting hierarchy or rules.

Lean structure promoting speed of responses Flexibility of configurations amongst firms l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Contractual relationships between firms Partnering and alliance relationships beyond contractual Trust and trustworthiness relationships within firms

Loosely knit but highly functional business relationships Trust and trustworthiness are important Simultaneous cooperation and competition Formal and informal connection between tirms

r.

% 0 4 s. E; $ e

E

2h 2

3:

142

JANICE A. BLACK AND SANDRA EDWARDS

IMPLICATIONS AND ISSUESARISING FROM VIRTUAL ORGANIZATIONS AND TEAMS Since virtual organizations and teams appear to meet the organizing demands of complex systems as delineated by Brown and Eisenhardt (1998) we would do well to also take heed of critical issues currently identified by organizations using such forms. Facilitating organizational survival are the issues of: (a) creating a more robust organizational form by using a network organizational design rather than a hierarchy (Lipnack & Stamps, 1999); (b) the utilization of complementary resources outside of the firm’s ownership or control (Dess et al., 1999; Quinn & Hillmer, 1994; Tully, 1993) and; (c) remaining responsive to turbulent environments (Byrne, 1993; Dess et al., 1999; Wertber, 1999) and overcoming the difficulties of face-to-face issues of synchronous time and same place (see earlier cites). Other critical issues include the need for a collaborative orientation (Dess et al., 1999; Werther, 1999) including trust within and between members of the teams and/or organizations (Voss, 1996; Coutu, 1998; Platt, 1999), general human resource issues (Werther, 1999) and technological troubles (Vowler, 1999). Expansion on Critical Issues Proactive collaboration is an advanced skill that may require explicit addressing along with many other interpersonal, technological and personal organizational skills (Alford, 1999; Townsend, DeMarie & Henrickson, 1996). Being comfortable to stretch outside of one’s standard routine and find ways to collaborate is not done in isolation. It requires an environment that supports such actions (Black & Boal, 1997). Trust is still a problematic construct with a wide range of definitions. The process of developing trust between individuals and organizations still needs empirical and theoretical work. While trust is a major cultural issue both within and between organizations and teams (Baba, 1999; Coutu, 1998), other cultural issues (Adler & Zirger, 1998; Boudreau, Loch, Robey & Straud, 1998; Laberis, 1996; Vowler, 1999) also become critical. These include creating a sense of organizational identity (Voss, 1996), team building activities (Townsend et al., 1996), facilitating proactive individuals (Black & Boal, 1997), empowering distributed teams (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998) and supporting change at the system, team and individual levels (Black & Boal, 1997; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998).

VWWI Teams and Organizations

143

Specific human resource issues that need to be addressed (Werther, 1999; Voss, 1996; Vowler, 1999; Wang, 1997) include the following changes: (a) traditional employment relationships moving toward temporary contractual relationships/project-based employment; (b) career management falls on individual; (c) benefits move to being provided more by professional, fraternal or other affinity groups; (d) increasing pressure for potable benefits; and (e) compensation packages based on incentives and tied to preset objectives and performance measures. Technological issues including technological troubles (Boudreau et al., 1998; Vowler, 1999) can range from equipment failure to incompatible equipment or even something as simple as inadequate training on the necessary sofiware. Such hardware and software uses (Boudreau et al., 1998; Simons, 1996) can include: up-to-date communication and information technologies, electronic data interchange, inter-organizational systems, electronic commerce using the Internet, language translation software, mass customization technology, extranets, groupware, intranet, organizational memory systems along with others yet to be marketed but currently under development. From the above critical issue areas, it is evident that there is a wide set of associated issues that need to be addressed when we consider this new form of organizing. Continued theoretical and empirical work is needed at the individual, team, organizational and inter-organizational levels.

CONDITIONS NEEDED FOR VIRTUAL TEAMS AND ORGANIZATIONS Severallonditions are suggested for the effective operations of virtual teams and/or organizations. Werther (1999) suggests that virtual organizations require advanced infrastructure in their supra-system. The supra-system refers to the external environment in which the organization operates and includes such issues as a legal environment that allows for contract laws with law enforcement present. There also needs to be surplus capacity in the industry and capital limitations at the firm level. Furthermore, virtual organizations are best suited for turbulent environments including those business environments with fast response times. Voss (1996) notes that to transition to a virtual organization requires being able to create a shared understanding of the core competencies needed to be developed and used. It requires an internal infrastructure that supports knowledge-sharing, communicating and working with locally dispersed (virtual) teams. Such an organizations needs to

144

JANICE A. BLACK AND SANDRA EDWARDS

emphasize monitoring and measuring performance and qualitative improvements of services and people. Compensation packages need to align with goals an process improvements. Alford (1999) cautions about the easily eroded sense of corporate identity that can take place in virtual firms. Some firms may need to increase training in team building and personal responsibility and install systems that encourage maintaining personal relationships between virtual team/organization members which facilitates virtual teams’ and organizations’ smooth functioning (Alford, 1999; Townsend, DeMarie & Hendrickson, 1996). While virtual teams and organizations are thought to enhance performance in turbulent environments, they do not necessarily reduce costs across the board. For example, the facility costs removed when a firm goes virtual may be offset by increased spending in technology and technology upgrading of hardware and software, as well as, increased costs of training and developing of team members (Simon, 1995; Alford, 1999). People will also need to meet occasionally face-to-face in addition to virtual interactions (Platt, 1999; Simons, 1996; Vowler, 1999). If team members are not able to be proactive in a face-to-face situation or are not willing to accept empowerment; they are not likely (without training) to be proactive in a virtual situation. Yet, proactive independent people are needed for these types of virtual organizational forms (Alford, 1999; Townsend, DeMarie & Henrickson, 1996).

CONCLUSION Developing an understanding of what is required for sustaining organizations from a complex business system perspective requires us to understand the characteristics of a complex system. From understanding that complex systems are not the same thing as an intricate, complicated static system, we focused on the dynamic issues of the;complex system. This requires that we understand parts as being non-linearly related not only to each other but also to the larger system and not in isolation. To understand the implications of this nonlinearity, we turned to complexity theory. From complexity theory and the attendant complex systems literature, we have seen that complex systems move between states that are ordered and disordered. Ordered states coalesce near attractor points. Any order may be disrupted by a bifurcation point due to the non-linear nature of the relationships within the system. Such points involve a qualitative change in the nature of what order means. An important point here is that complexity theory enables us to see another kind of order than just the

vim1

Teams and Organizations

145

currently apparent pattern and manage that deeper order for better adaptability. From examining the literature on virtual groups and increased turbulence in our economic markets, we determined that such bifurcation points have occurred repeatedly over the past several decades. While the advent of bifurcation points increases the conjunction opportunities in the environment, it also moves our economies to a state of operating at the edge of chaos. When such conditions are prevalent, theorists need to be identifying different sets of organizing rules to use. When this new set of organizing rules are overlaid with the conditions and processes facilitated by the use of advanced communication technology and computing technology, we f?und that virtual teams and network organizations are logical forms for organizations. This form allows firms to cope with this new, not yet stable, economic environment until proximity to a new attractor event allows a stable system to emerge. This being the case, virtual teams and organizations are being supported by this shift in the definition of order. With the shift comes a changing emphasis on organizational development and human resource issues along with the technological issues of operating virtually.

REFERENCES Adler,

T. R., & Ziiger, B. J. (1998). Organizational learning: Implications of a virtual research and development organization. American Business Review, Z6(2), 51-60. Alford, R. J. (1999). Going virtual, getting real. Training & Development. 53(l), 34-56. Allcom, S. (1997). Parallel virtual organizations: Managing and working in the virtual workplace. Administration & Society, 29(4), 412-43 1. Baba, I$. L. (1999). Dangerous liaisons, trust, distrust, and information technology in American work organizations. Human Organization, 58(3), 331-350. Black, J. A., & Boal, K. B. (1997). Assessing the Capacity to Change. In: A. Heene & R. Sanchez (Eds), Competence-Based Strategic Management. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons. Black, J. A., & Farias, G. (2000). Dynamic Strategies: Emergent Journeys. Emergence: A Journal of Complexity Issues in Organization & Management, 2(l), 97-l 10. Boudreau, J. C., Loch, K. D., Robey, D., & Straud, D. (1998). Going global: Using information technology to advance the competitiveness of the virtual transnational organization. Academy of Management Executive, 12(4), 120-129. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). Balancing Act: How to Capture Knowledge without Killing It. Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 73-80. Brown, S. L., & Eisenbardt, K. M. (1998). Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Caldwell, B., & Gambon, J. (1996). The Virtual Office gets real - its just more than just fantasy. In fact, virtual teams are saving money and boosting productivity at America West, IBM and elsewhere. Znformation Week, (January 22), 32-40. Cramer, F. (1993). Chaos and Order (translated by D. I. Loewus). New York: VCH Publishers.

JANICE A. BLACK AND SANDRA EDWARDS Costley, D. L., Santana-Melgoza, C., & Todd, R. (1994). Human Relations in Organizations (5th ed.). New York: West Publishing Company. Coutu, D. L. (1998). Trust in virtual teams. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 20-22. Davidow, W. H., & Malone, M. S. (1992). The Virrual Corporation. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Dess, G. G., Rash&, A. M., McLaughlin, K. J., & Priem, R. L. (1995). The new corporate architecture.. Academy of Managemenr Execuiive, 9(3), 7-20. Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & McGee, J. E. (1999). Linking corporate entrepreneurship to strategy, structure and process: Suggested research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23(3), 85-102. Devaney, R. L. (1988). Dynamics of Simple Maps. In: R. L. Devaney & L. Keen (JZds),Chaos und Fractals: The M&emutics Behind the Computer Graphics. Providence, Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society. Favre, A., G&ton, H., Guitton, J., Lichnerowicz, A., & Wolff, E. (1995). Chaos and Determinism: Turbulence as a paradigm for complex systems converging towardjnal states (translated by B. E. Schwarzbach). London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Hunt, J. C. R. (1995). Foreword. In: A. Favre, H. Guitton, J. Guitton, A. Lichnerowicz & E. Wolff (Eds), Chaos and Converging Toward

Determinism: Final States

Turbulence

as a Paradigm

for

Complex

Systems

(translated by B. E. Schwarzbach). London: The Johns

Hopkins University Press. Ilgen, D. R., Major, D. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Sego, D. J. (1993). Team Research in the 1990s. In: M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds), Leadership Theory and Research. New York: Academic Press, Inc. Lewin, A. Y., Long, C. P., & Carroll, T. N. (1999). The &evolution of new Organizational Forms. Organization

Science,

10(5),

535-550.

Maloff, J. (1995). The virtual corporation. Internet World, 46-50. Merrifield, D. B. (1999). Innovation management in the 7th “great epoch”. Research Technology Management, 42(5), 10-14. McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interucrion and performunce. Inglewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1992). Causes of failure in network organizations. California Management

Review,

34(4),

53-72.

Oravec, J. A. (1996). Mrtual Individuals, Wrtual Groups. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Pickard, J. (1998). Ground rules for high tech tools. People Managemen& 4(3), 47-48. Platt, L. (1999). Vial teaming: Where is everyone? The Journal for Qwlity and Participurion, 22(5), 4143. Quinn, J. B., & Hihner, F. G. (lb94). Strategic outsourcing. Sloan Management Review, 35(l), 43-55. Simons, T. (1995). Virtual reality: Creation of a virtual corporation. Inc. Oci. 1995, 17(14), 23-25. Soloman, C. M. (1998). Sharing information across borders and time zones. Workforce, 3(2), 12-18. Stoddard, D. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Littlejohn, M. (1996). The reality of business reengineering: Pacific Bell’s Centrex provisions process. California Managemeni Review, 38(3), 57. Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1996). Are you ready for virtual teams? HRMagazine, 41(9), 122-127. Tully, S. (1993). The modular corporation. Fortune, 127(3), 106-114.

Virtual vail&

Teams

and

Organizations

147

E? (1989). Managing as a petiorming art: New ideas for a world of chaotic change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Voss, H. (1996). Virtual organizations: The future is now. Strategy & Leadership, 24(4), 12-18. Vowler, J. (1999). Project management with a virtual team: Six difficulties in managing virtual project teams. Computer Weekly, (May 27). 44. Wang, S. (1997). Impact of Information Technology on Organizations. Human Systems Management, 16(2), 83-90. Werther, W. B. (1999). Structure-driven Strategy and virtual organization design. Business Horizons, 42(2), 13-19.

VIRTUAL TEAM FITNESS: ENHANCING TEAM PERFORMANCE THROUGH TEAM MEMBER HEALTH Kathi J. Lovelace,ChristopherI? Neck and CharlesC. Manz ABSTRACT virtual teams have received increased attention in both the practitioner and academic literature, yet little attention has been given to the development of individual team member physical health as a way to improve virtual team per$ormance. While some recent research has examined the role of physical health on managerial amYor employee pet$onnance (e.g. Frew & Bruning, 1988; Neck & Cooper 2000; Shephard, 1999), we argue the role of physical health on an organizational team is equally important. Consequently, this chapter specijically gamines the benejts of physicaljtness on virtual team pe$ormance, and suggests that there is a positive relationship between team member physicaljtness and overall team performance.

INTRODUCTION Effective teams provide organizations with improvements in both the quantity and quality of work performance (Banker, Field, Schroeder & Sinha, 1996; Guzzo 8~ Dickson, 1996; Hackman, 1988; Lawler, 1986, 1992; Manz & Sims, 1993; Sims & Lorenzi, 1992; Yukl, 1998). Virtual teams are one particular form Vlrturd Teams, Volume 8, pages 215-237. Copyright 8 2001 by Elsevier Sdence Ltd. AU rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISBN: O-7623-0843-5 215

216

KATHI J. LOVELACE, CHRISTOPHER p. NECK AND CHARLES C. MANZ

of a workplace team that is receiving increased attention in both the practitioner and academic literature. Recently, Townsend, DeMarie and Hendrickson (1998) have defined virtual teams in the following manner: Virtual teams are groups of geographically and/or organizationally dispersed coworkers that are assembled using a combination of telecommunications and information technologies to accomplish an organizational task. Virtual teams rarely, if ever, meet in a face-to-face setting. They may be set up as temporary structures, existing only to accomplish a specific task, or may be more permanent structures, used to address ongoing issues, such as strategic planning. Further, membership is often fluid, evolving according to changing task requirements (p. 17).

This definition suggests that in virtual teams members interact across space, time, and organizational boundaries to achieve performance goals (Lipnack & stamps, 1997). The virtual team environment requires team members to be flexible and adaptable in order to successfully manage a variety of tasks, interact with a variety of people, and adapt to advances in information technologies that enable them to exist (Townsend et al., 1998). Indeed, the demands facing virtual team members can be quite stressful and challenging. Townsend et al. (1998) reinforce this point as they argue: One of the benefits of the virtual team environment is its ability to efficiently connect people and enable greater levels of productivity. This may result in employees’ being assigned to more teams, creating a more complex and potentially stressful work environment. Organizations must be careful not to overextend virtual team members and saddle them with levels of responsibility that they cannot reasonably satisfy. One important supervisory role will be to ensure that virtual team members have enough private time to complete their individual assignments and prepare for their team participation (p. 27).

The above quote suggests the organization can play a key role in terms of helping virtual team members deal with the stressors related to a virtual team environment. We posit that the team members themselves can also take a leadership role in helping themselves to adapt and overcome such demands. In short, we argue that virtual team members must be physically and psychologically healthy to handle the demands of this new organizational form. Consequently, this chapter examines the physiological and psychological benefits of physical fitness, and suggests that physically fit team members can lead to improvements in overall team performance. Extant research on effective team performance has focused on the development of functional (e.g. technical/unit coordination) and interpersonal (e.g. conflict management) skills of team members (Barry, 1991; Stewart, Manz & Sims, 1999; Yukl, 1998). Within the management literature, little attention has been given to the development of individual physical fitness as a

btual TeamFitness

217

way to improve team performance. While some research has examined the role of physical fitness on managerial and/or employee performance (Frew & Bruning, 1988; Neck & Cooper, 2oo0, Shephard, 1999), we argue the role of physical fitness on an organizational team is equally important. In fact, team member physical fitness is timely and relevant to virtual team performance for several reasons. For example, team member health is affected by current work trends. Teams today exist in virtual work environments that are characterized by changes and increases in demands associated with globalization, rapid technological advances, diminishing resources, increasing costs, and an evolution from physical work to knowledge-based work (Jaffe, 1995; Kinicki, McKee &Wade, 1996). The health risks associated with working fast and hard, experiencing conflicting job and role demands, and sedentary work not only affect personal performance, but also organizational performance through decreases in job satisfaction and commitment and increases in absenteeism, and health care costs. (Fleisher, Brown & Fleisher, 1996; Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991; Kinicki et al., 1996; Reardon, 1998). We suggest that physical fitness is one way to buffer the ill effects of these virtual work environments. Poor team member health also translates into higher organizational costs through increases in health care expenditures (Gebhardt & Crump, 1990; Ilgen, 1990; Jaffe, 1995; Karasek & Theorell, 1990; Manning, Jackson & Fusilier, 19%). Excessive health care costs is a primary concern to organizations given that the annual costs of health care in the U.S. alone are estimated to be in the billions of dollars (Jaffe, 1995; Reardon, 1998). In fact, the American Heart Association reports that the economic effects from cardiovascular disease (which research shows can be related to poor fitness habits) amounted to an estimated $286.5 billion in 1999. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, such losses affect employer and employee alike in lost work days and wages, lost productivity, increased health care costs and lowered morale (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1981). One aim of the virtual environment is to improve productivity while maintaining or reducing organizational costs. Physical fitness, with its physiological and psychological benefits offers to potentially reduce the incidence of health related costs. In addition to economic issues, research suggests that the mechanistic structure of work has significantly contributed to the increase of preventable diseases such as cardiovascular disease due to the pattern of inactivity associated with sedentary work and life-styles (Gardell, 1987; Karasak & Theorell, 1990; Rosato, 1990). Interestingly, acute infectious disorders that were common in the late 19th-century and early 2Oth-century, such as polio,

218

KATHI

J. LOVELACE,

CHRISTOPHER

p. NECK AND CHARLES

C. MANZ

tuberculosis, and influenza have significantly declined and preventable diseases such as cardiovascular disease and obesity, have dramatically increased (Matarazzo, 1984). This suggests that virtual team members, many of whom work long hours in sedentary positions, may be at a greater risk for some preventable diseases. Physical fitness, by definition, increases a person’s level of physical activity, thus reducing the negative effects of physical inactivity. Government mandates such as “Healthy People 2000” also bring team member health into the forefront. Specific objectives of the mandate include the reduction of work-related injuries and sedentary work/lifestyles, and the increase of physical activity and worksite fitness programs (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1993). Repetitive motion disorder and other disorders associated with new work technologies and processes are critical health problems that can potentially affect virtual team performance. Again, physical fitness offers promise for alleviating these problems. Furthermore, the aging workforce raises multiple health concerns given that the median age of the workforce is now 40 years of age, up 12 years from the median age of 28 in 1970 (Jex, 1998). As virtual team members age, healthrelated disabilities related to chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes sharply increase. For example, recent population reports indicated that 52% of older persons have a disability that limits their activities (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1997). Physical ,fitness offers promise to reduce age-related health problems, and in doing so, improve virtual team member performance (e.g. Cooper, 1998; Neck & Cooper, 2000). Finally, team member physical fitness has a humanitarian component. Quality of life improvements that individuals experience due to increased fitness levels can enhance longevity, reduce unnecessary pain, and encourage continued activity into the future (e.g. Neck & Cooper, 2ooO). Society as a whole benefits through increased community participation and the reduction in costs and required tax revenues to pay for expenses resulting from ill health in the population (Manning,tKeeler, Newhouse, Sloss & Waserman, 1991). As such, the performance improvements of physically fit virtual team members provide personal and societal benefits. Thus, organizations should be increasingly interested in improving team member health for both utilitarian and humanistic reasons (Fleisher et al., 1996; Ilgen, 1990). To support our position that physical fitness can contribute to helping virtual teams achieve advanced performance levels, we first examine the literature on team performance to establish an understanding of the factors that influence virtual team performance. Next, we articulate the relevance of physical fitness for improving member and consequently team performance by

Wmal

Team Fitness

219

outlining the effects of physical fitness on physiological and psychological outcomes. We then present a model that links physical fitness with virtual team performance to demonstrate the value of physically fit team members. The implications from this model suggest that physically fit team members not only benefit the organization’s bottom line, but also provide holistic benefits to team members such as increased longevity and improved quality of life.

DETERMINANTS OF TEAM PERFORMANCE To establish the key determinants of virtual team performance, we briefly examine several models that analyze team performance through an inputthroughput-output framework (e.g. Campion, Medsker & Higgs, 1993; Hackman, 1988, 1990; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; McGrath, 1964; Salas, Dickinson, Converse & Tannenbaum, 1992; Tannenbaum, Beard & Salas, 1992). These models suggest that team member characteristics serve as inputs, throughputs are team development and processes variables, and outputs are the specific determinants of performance. We focus on the output variables of several team performance models and describe current research on virtual team performance in order to establish a framework of the important factors that relate to effective virtual team performance. This brief overview will serve as a basis for addressing the research on team member physical fitness as a typically overlooked, yet promising area for making a significant additional contribution to our understanding of the process of achieving successful virtual team performance. One of the first models to theoretically describe effective team performance is McGrath’s (1964) input-process-output framework. According to the model, team performance (i.e. output) is measured in terms of functional factors such as quality of work, speed to solution, and number of errors, and interpersonal factors such as member satisfaction, group cohesiveness, and sociometric structure. This framework became the most frequently used framework for organizing and framing research on team performance (Yeats & Hyten, 1998). For example, research presented by Tannenbaum, Salas, and colleagues provides two models of team performance that are based on an inputthroughput-output framework (Salas et al., 1992; Tamrenbaum et al., 1992). While much more elaborate than McGrath’s original model, these models also identify functional factors such as quality and quantity of output, errors, time, and costs as important determinants of team performance. Interpersonal factors, which are labeled as individual changes (e.g. attitudes, motivation,

220

KATHI J. LOVELACE, CHRISTOPHER p. NECK AND CHARLES C. MANZ

mental modes) in this model are posited to directly influence the functional team performance outcomes. The Hackman model of team effectiveness (Hackman, 1988,199O; Hackman & Oldham, 1980) is another well-received model that analyzes performance in terms of an input-throughput-output framework. In this model, three output variables are identified as influencing performance: acceptability of task output to customer, member satisfaction, and the capability of the members to work together in the future. All three dete rminants, which blend functional and interpersonal factors, must be present and positive in direction for effective team performance. In a review of the literature on team performance, Campion et al. (1993) identify design characteristics that affect team performance. Specifically, five design characteristics (job design, interdependence, composition, context, and process) are hypothesized to influence the team performance factors of productivity, satisfaction, and manager judgments. In summary, this brief examination of the above models demonstrates a gradual blending over time of the functional and interpersonal factors that determine team performance. We suggest that this evolution is in response to a changing work environment, where team members interact simultaneously with technology and people. Thus, this examination of team performance is meant to establish the relevance of an input-throughput-output framework of team performance that can be applied to virtual team performance. While theoretical models of virtual team performance are still forthcoming, current researchers have identified several important factors that influence virtual team effectiveness (e.g. Duarte & Snyder, 1999; Townsend et al., 1998). For example, Duarte and Synder (1999) identify six critical competencies for the virtual team member: project management, networking, use of technology, self-management, boundary spanning, and interpersonal awareness. To be successful, virtual team members need an understanding of human dynamics, cross-functional and -cultural knowledge, and the ability to use technology as the primary means of comn)unicating and collaborating.-Virtual team members must be adaptive and able to respond effectively to unpredictable environments. Additional research on effective virtual team performance identifies good communication skills, flexibility and adaptability, and a high level of commitment as key factors of successful performance (Townsend et al., 1998). In the virtual environment, challenges associated with communication, flexibility, and commitment become more pronounced due to the inherent characteristics of this new work form (e.g. absence of face-to-face contact, multiple roles). Townsend et al. (1998) report:

virtual

221

Team Fitness

Within the larger organixational culture and the technical environment, the group dynamic of a virtual team depends on the socialization process of the individual teams. Unlike many traditional teams, virtual teams will be expected to be able to repeatedly change membership with out losing productivity; little time will be available for team members to learn how to work together. Thus effective virtual team members will have to be particularly adept at fitting into a variety of team situations (p. 24).

As the above quote illustrates, virtual team members must be able to respond effectively to this constantly changing environment. Table 1 stmrmari zes the determinants of team performance described by traditional theoretical models and current research on virtual team performance. To develop a model of virtual team fitness we focus on the factors that research has identified as pertinent to virtual team performance in order to substantiate that physically fit team members are better able to adapt and successfully function in this virtual environment. In particular, we posit that physical fitness is a team member characteristic (i.e. input) that positively afkcts virtual team performance (i.e. output) through the physiological and psychological benefits of physical fitness (i.e. throughputs). Next we define physical fitness and examine the benefits of physical fitness.

Table 1. Viial

Determinants of Team Performance.

Team Research

Duarte and Synder, (1999) .

Determinants of Team Performance - Output Variables Project management, use of technology, boundary spanning, networking, self-management, interpersonal awareness

Townsend, DeMarie and Hendrickson (1998)

Project management, use of technology, communication, flexibility, commitment

Traditional Teams Research

Determinants of Team Performance - Qutput Variables

McGrath (1964)

Quality of work, speed to solution, number of errors, member satisfaction, group cohesiveness, sociometrics

Tarmenbaum, Salas and colleagues (1~)

Quality and quantity of output, errors, time, costs, attitudes, motivation, mental modes

Hackman (1988, 1990); Hackman & Oldham (1980)

Capability of members to work together in the future, customer satisfaction, member satisfaction

Campion, Medsker and Higgs (1993)

Productivity, satisfaction, manager judgments

222

KATHI J. LOVELACE, CHRISTOPHER p. NECK AND CHARLES C. MANZ

PHYSICAL

FITNESS AT A GLANCE

Physical fitness refers to the capacity of the heart, blood vessels, lungs and muscles to function at a high level of efficiency, thus allowing an individual to meet the various demands of daily life safely and effectively (Cotton & Goldstein, 1993; Hafen & Hoeger, 1998). Physical activity and physical fitness are often used synonymously, yet activity refers to the bodily movements that result in energy expenditure, and fitness is the general capacity of the body to respond favorably to physical effort. Physical activity is a necessary ingredient of physical fitness. Physical fitness can be classified into motor skill-related and health-related fitness. Motor-skill related fitness is mostly associated with athletics and includes agility, balance, coordination, and speed. Health related physical fitness includes muscular sttengtb and endurance, flexibility, body composition, and cardio-respiratory endurance (Cotton & Goldstein, 1993; Hafen 8z Hoeger, 1998; Shephard, 1994). Our focus is on health-related physical fitness. Adequate physical fitness is, “the ability to perform routine physical activity without undue fatigue” (Smolin & Grossvenor, 1977, p. 354). A primary vehicle for achieving this ability level is regular sustained periods of exercise of approximately 30 minutes of exercise a day. More specifically, research from the Cooper Institute in Dallas strongly shows that to reduce the risk of premature death, to prolong life, and to enhance functioning, adults should accumulate 30 minutes of moderate exercise per day (Blair, Kohl, PaEenbarger, Clark, Cooper & Gibbons, 1989). This is consistent with the public health statement regarding physical activity produced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine (Pate et al., 1995). Moderate-intensity physical activity can likewise be labeled as lowerintensity exercise. In short, this is exercising at one’s target heart rate, which is scientifically established higher-than-normal, but less-than-maximum rate that allows an employee to improve his/her endurance. To determine your personal target heart rate, subtract your age from 220 to get your predicted maximal heart rate. Then take 65-80s of that figure to obtain your target heart rate. For example, a forty-year old would have a predicted maximal heart rate of 220 minus 40, or 180. Multiplying that figure by 0.65 and by 0.80 produces a target heart rate range for endurance exercise of 117 to 144 heartbeats per minute (Neck & Cooper, 2000). Physical fitness has been shown to improve an individual’s physiological and psychological well-being (Hafen & Hoeger, 1998; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996), and to contribute positively to job performance

virtual

Team Fitness

223

(Frew XQ Bruning, 1988; Shephard, 1999). An overview of the physiological and psychological effects of physical fitness is presented below. Physical Fitness and Physiological Benejits

The physiological benefits of physical fitness include an improved ability to perform tasks and the prevention of disease. Tasks are easier to perform due to several specific physiological outcomes of fitness: increased oxygen uptake, lower resting heart rate and increased cardiac muscle (e.g. heart) strength, lower heart rate during physical activity, decreased onset of fatigue, faster recovery time after physical exertion, and an increase in fat-burning enzymes (Hafen & Hoeger, 1998). Physical fitness has also been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, adult onset diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, and certain cancers (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1993; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996). We will briefly examine the specific benefits of physical fitness within these categories. Improved Task Performance

Task performance is improved as a result of regular physical activity and physical fitness. For example, increases in oxygen uptake can be observed in individuals with as little as two to three weeks of aerobic training (Hafen & Haeger, 1998). Oxygen uptake relates to the amount of oxygen the body is able to use during physical activity. The higher the maximal oxygen uptake the longer the person can be active before becoming fatigued. Thus, physically fit team members are less likely to become physically worn out from the pacing in a virtual work environment. Resting heart rate is also lower in the physically fit person. During resting conditions, the heart pumps five to six liters of blood per minute through the body to meet the energy demands. In the fit person, the heart is stronger and more efficient, which means that more blood is ejected with each heart beat. This increase in cardiac output allows the heart to rest longer between beats. Average resting heart rates are between 70 and 80 beats per minute (bpm). In trained athletes, resting heart rates are typically around 45 bpm. Physically fit individuals also have lower heart rates during exertion (Cotton 8z Goldstein, 1993). Because the heart is stronger, less work is needed to mobilize the body. The strong heart is also able to return to an internal equilibrium faster than the unfit heart, allowing for a faster recovery time. In addition to enjoying cardiovascular benefits, the physically fit individual is able to burn fat more efficiently due to an increase in fat-burning enzymes found in muscle.

224

KATHI

J. LOVELACE,

CHRISTOPHER

I? NECK AND CHARLES

C. MANz

Moreover, research supports a positive relationship between fitness and daily job performance. For example, commercial real estate stock brokers who participated in an aerobics training program (walking and/or running once a day, three times a week, for 12 weeks) experienced greater sales commissions during and subsequent to the training program than brokers who did not participate in the exercise program. Also, workers from a hospital equipment firm who participated in a similar aerobics training program (walking, running, swimming, and/or bicycling once a day, four times a week, for 24 weeks) enjoyed greater productivity and job satisfaction than workers who did not participate in the fitness program. (See Shephard, 1999; Frew 8z Bruning, 1988; Edwards & Gettman, 1980; and Neck & Cooper, 2000, for a discussion of these studies and other information on the fitness and performance relationship.) Thus, physical fitness is an important component of team member health due to these and other fitness related benefits including improvements in muscular strength and endurance, proper body composition, increased energy levels, and better sleep patterns. Building upon this research, we argue that virtual team members who are physically fit will be able to endure the stressful demands of this new organizational form, and thus perform better than those who are less physically fit. Disease Prevention Cardiovascular disease. Physical fitness helps reduce the risk of cardiovas-

cular disease by increasing the body’s cardiovascular endurance. Cardiovascular endurance refers to the ability of the lungs, heart, and blood vessels to deliver oxygen and nutrients to the cells in order to meet the demands of normal and unusual life activities. Physical fitness decreases and controls blood pressure, lowers LDL or “bad” cholesterol, and improves HDL or “good” cholesterol. Also, because regular exercise helps maintain a proper body composition, cardiovascular health risks associated with excess body fat and obesity are reduced (Cottop & Goldstein, 1993; Hafen & Hoeger, 1998). These cardiovascular related benefits of physical fitness have been supported by various research studies. For example, the findings in one study revealed improvements in cardiovascular function and strength, as well as reductions in body fat and weight for 66 men engaged in a two-year exercise program located within the corporate headquarters (Paolone, Lewis, Lanigan & Goldstein, 1976). A study led by Dr. Dean Grnish showed that lifestyle changes that include diet and exercise can reverse the atherosclerotic changes of coronary heart disease and unblock arteries enough to avoid surgery (Ornish et al., 1990).

w-1

Team Fitness

225

Diabetes. Diabetes is a condition where the body is unable to regulate the level of sugar (i.e. glucose) in the blood. As a result, glucose absorption in the cells and liver is low, and absorption is high in the blood. Individuals with ,&or&ally high blood glucose levels have difficulty metabolizing fats, which can lead to clogged arteries (i.e. atherosclerosis) and other cardiovascular disease risk factors. In fact, over 80% of people with diabetes die from cardiovascular disease (Hafen & Hoeger, 1998). Moreover, it is estimated that 25% of older adults are at risk for adult-onset diabetes. Research indicates that physically active adults are less likely to develop this form of diabetes, due to lowered body fat and better sugar and fat metabolism (Helmrich, Ragland, Letmg & Paffenbarger, 1991). ~~teopomsis. Osteoporosis is a condition of decreased bone mass, causing bones to be porous, brittle, and susceptible to breakage (Cotton & Goldstein, 1993). Osteoporosis is more likely to occur in older adults (particularly women), although the incidence of bone density loss has been associated with poor diets and lack of exercise, regardless of age (Hafen 8z Hoeger, 1998). Regular exercise, and in particular, weight bearing exercise, increases bone density. Virtual team members in sedentary jobs may be at risk for weak bones due to the lack of weight bearing activities associated with this work. Loss of Muscle Muss. A particularly destructive tendency of inadequate fitness is the loss of muscle tissue (Neck & Cooper, 2000). Without a regular program of strength exercises - or at least consistent involvement in rigorous, muscleconditioning activities, such as heavy labor - a steady loss of muscle mass will occur after about the age of thirty. According to some estimates, a 3 to 5% loss of muscle mass happens every 10 years, beginning between age 30 to 40. Some exp@s argue that the total loss of muscle mass between ages 30 and 70 may be as high as 30 to 40%, or an average of 10% every 10 years during this period (Cohen, 1980; Evans & Campbell, 1993; Neck & Cooper, 2000). Reduced muscle mass means a reduced ability to function physically. In fact, it is estimated that 80% of all lower back pain is the result of poorly conditioned muscles (Neck & Cooper, 2000). The good news is that strength exercises can help reverse the loss of muscle tissue that occurs with aging. One study in particular showed that even those over 90 years of age can become stronger and increase the size of their muscles with a supervised weighttraining program (Fiatarone, Marks, Ryan, Meredith, Lipsitz & Evans, 1990). Obesiry Obesity is a chronic disease characterized by an excessively high amount of body fat in relation to lean body mass. Approximately 65 million A~~~~CZLIIS are overweight, and 30 million of these people are obese. While obesity is considered an independent risk factor in cardiovascular disease,

226

KATHI J. LOVELACE, CHRISTOPHER P.NECK AND CHARLES C. MANZ

several risk factors are associated with excessive body fat, such as high cholesterol (LDL levels), diabetes, and high blood pressure, which in turn contribute to health problems. For example, a 12 year study indicated that people who were 40% or more overweight were at a substantially greater risk of developing cancer (Hafen & Hoeger, 1998). Additionally, there is solid evidence that non-obese people live longer. A recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine of over one million adults during a 1Cyear period confirmed that being overweight shortened a person’s life (Calle, Thun, Petrelli, Rodrigues h Heath, 1999). A related study looked at the relationship between being physically fit (nonobese) and death. More specifically, the research investigated the relationship between fitness levels and risk of dying in more than 10,000 men and 3,000 women. The study revealed that men and women with low levels of physical fitness had more than twice the mortality rate of persons with even a moderate level of physical fitness. Fitness in this case helped overcome all causes of mortality, including diabetes, cancer, and heart disease (Blair et al., 1989). Thus, regular exercise helps maintain a healthy body composition, and alleviate health problems associated with excessive body fat. Likewise, physically fit team members can reduce productivity losses associated with disease and poor task performance. Physical Fitness and Psychological Benefits

Physical fitness benefits psychological well-being through improvements in mood and cognitive functioning. Research suggests that both acute and chronic exercise (i.e. short periods of exercise and exercise over a long period of time) enhances mood by reducing anxiety and depression, and by increasing feelings of vigor (Brandon & Loftin, 1991; Fillingim & Blumenthal, 1993). It has also been posited that physical fitness enhances mood through its stress reducing properties (Baun, Bernacki & Herd, 1987; Brown, 1991; Crews & Landers, 1987; Falkenberg, 1987).1 Furthermore, cognitive functioning is affected by physical fitness (Chodzko-Zajko & Moore, 1991). Both of these potential psychological benefits of fitness are described below. Mood

The mood enhancing properties of exercise can be explained both physiologically and psychologically (Fillingim & Blumenthal, 1993). Physiologically, research suggests that exercise improves mood through increasing the circulating levels of monoamine neurotransmitters such as norepinephrine and serotonin. (Fillingim & Blumenthal, 1993). Additionally, exercise releases

W-tual Team Fitness

227

brain chemicals, such as endorphins and peptides, which can produce a euphoric feeling and improve mood. Several studies support our contention that exercise can enhance mood states. For example, the results of a study of 100 male subjects indicated that non-exercisers reported higher levels of anxiety, aggression, and hostility than those subjects categorized as advanced joggers (Nouri & Beer, 1989). Likewise, in a study of prison inmates, those prisoners who participated in aerobic exercise programs experienced less tension and depression (Cooper, 1982). In a study of high risk heart disease patients (males, 40 to 58 years old), improvements in physical fitness were associated with improvements on both anxiety and depression measures (Folkins, 1976). Additionally, in a study that employed objective measures of fitness (e.g. maxirn~ oxygen uptake and resting heart rate) significant positive results were found between fitness and mood states (DiLorenzo, Bargman, StuckyRopp, Brassington, Frensch & LaFontaine, 1999). Also, 23 senior citizens participating in a 10 week wrist weight exercise program experienced significant improvements in mood upon completion of the training regimen (Engels, Drouin, Zhu & Kazmierski, 1998). Psychologically, exercise may improve mood through enhanced self-esteem and self-efficacy. In a recent study, significant improvements in self-esteem and self worth were found in sedentary adults who participated in a 20-week exercise program (McAuley, Mihalko & Bane, 1997). In a study of aging adults, exercise helped preserve social identity and was thus positively related to self-esteem and self-efficacy (Fontane, 1996). This empirical support suggests that physical fitness positively affects self-esteem and self-efficacy, which in turn improves mood (Crews & Landers, 1987; Daley & Parlitt, 1996; Fillingim & Blumenthal, 1993; Hafen & Hoeger, 1998). These findings suggest thatphysically fit team members, through improved mood states and enhanced self esteem, may be better able to handle the interpersonal relations and communication challenges associated with the virtual environment. Cognitive Functioning

Theories speculate that cerebral circulation and neurotrophic stimulation are the mechanisms by which physical fitness influences cognitive performance. The cerebral circulation hypothesis states that fitness increases the amount of blood flow to the brain, which in turn increases the amount of nutrients (e.g. glucose and oxygen) the brain receives. The brain requires oxygen to function, and physically fit individuals, by definition, have greater oxygen intake capabilities than unfit individuals (Chodzko-Zajko & Moore, 1991; Etnier, Salazar, Landers, Petruzzello, Han & Nowell, 1997; VanBoxtel, Paas, Houx, Adam, Teeken & Jolles, 1997).

228

KATHI J. LOVELACE, CHRISTOPHER p. NECK AND CHARLES C. MANZ

Support for the cerebral circulation hypothesis comes from studies of hypoxia (oxygen deficiency) and cardiovascular disease (Chodxko-Zajko & Moore, 1991). Hypoxia, a condition commonly associated with the oxygenthinning effects of increased elevations, is significantly related to decreased performance on a variety of cognitive tasks. Mountain climbers, particularly those climbing Mt. Everest, are tested for hypoxia to determine whether their cognitive functioning is at a level deemed adequate for continuing the climb. Similarly, cardiovascular disease has been associated with decreases in blood flow to the brain, and studies have shown that individuals with cardiovascular disease exhibit impaired cognitive performance relative to their healthy counterparts (Chodzko-Zajko & Moore, 1991). The neurotrophic stimulation hypothesis posits that physical fitness slows the. process of neural degradation that is associated with advancing age by increasing neuromuscular activity within the brain (VanBoxtel et al., 1997). Decades of animal studies have shown that physical activity is associated with increased brain weight, capillary growth, and an increased number of dendritic connections. Recent human research has found that exercise produces significant changes in neurotransmitter levels. For example, increases in norepinephrine, serotonin, and endorphins have been widely documented after periods of physical exercise (Chodzko-Zajko & Moore, 1991). Several studies support the relationship between fitness and cognitive functioning, especially for individuals within the age ranges of many executives (Neck & Cooper, 2000). For example, one study of 56 college professors revealed that physically active people process data faster and experience a slower decline in information processing speed than inactive people as they age (Lupinacci, Rikli, Jones & Ross, 1993). Similarly, the findings from a study of postal workers aging from 18 to 62 years of age suggested that older (43-62 years of age), less fit individuals, consistently under-performed older, fitter people and younger individuals ( 18-30 years old) on mental tasks involving information processing (Bunce, Barrowclough & # Morris, 1996). Despite the growing evidence concerning the positive effects of physical fitness on cognitive functioning, some interpretive caution is appropriate. For instance, cognitive functioning is a multi-dimensional phenomena, and the positive effects of physical fitness are most likely to be associated with tasks that require rapid or effortful processing, and less likely to be associated with self-paced or automatic processing tasks. Furthermore, the greatest effects of long term fitness on cognitive functioning appear to be primarily limited to its age-suppressing effects. Nevertheless, physically fit individuals not only defy

virtual Team Fitness

229

many of the detrimental effects of aging, but also benefit from sustained cognitive performance. Summary

Up to this point, we have presented the physical and psychological benefits of individual fitness. Table 2 summarizes these benefits. Virtual team members who are physically fit will thus be better able to handle the physical and mental pressures associated with today’s high pressured, stressful team environments and thus will experience enhanced team performance. Next, we will present a model of team fitness that will serve to better describe our contention that team member fitness will enhance virtual team outcomes. Table 2.

Physiological and Psychological Benefits of Physical Fitness.

Physiological Benefits

Psychological Benefits

Improved task performance:

Improved mood:

Increased oxygen uptake Lower resting heart rate Increased cardiac muscle strength Lower heart rate during physical activity Decreased onset of fatigue Paster recovery time after physical exertion Increase in fat-burning enzymes Disease prevention: Cardiovascular disease D&b&S

Osteoporosis Loss of muscle mass Obesity

Decreased depression Decreased anxiety Release of endorphins and peptides Enhanced self esteem Enhanced self efficacy

Improved cognitive functioning: Increased oxygen to brain Increased neuromuscular activity in the brain Clearer thinking Improved alertness

MODEL OF VIRTUAL TEAM FITNESS Research suggests that enhanced fitness for managers provides value to both the individual employee and the organization (Neck & Cooper, 2000). Similarly, we argue that improving the performance of virtual teams by fostering physically fit team members provides benefits to both the organization and the individual. By integrating the research on the determinants of

230

KATHI J. LOVELACE, CHRISTOPHER p. NECK AND CHARLES C. MANZ

virtual team effectiveness and the significant potential contribution of physical fitness through its positive impact on physiological and psychological outcomes, we present a model that posits that team fitness can foster team health and empowerment and improve performance. This model is founded on the premise that teams are only as strong as their weakest link (i.e. the most “atrisk” team member). Further, the nature of jobs associated with virtual teams can include elements that pose health risks to members. Consequently, ensuring that all members arc equipped for optimal performance by promoting good physical health should be an important goal for any virtual team based organization. Figure 1 presents the model of virtual team fitness. The model depicts the positive physiological and psychological benefits of physical fitness already described in this chapter. The next level presents the positive influence of physical fitness, with its physiological and psychological benefits, on organizational performance. We use commonly measured organizational performance outcomes to categorize the research on fitness and work-related outcomes. These categories are: productivity/performance, absenteeism/sick leave/health care cost, and turnover/commitment/attitudes. The base level of our model presents the determinants of virtual team performance and represents our claim that physical fitness is an important way to improve virtual team performance. To support this main premise, we next describe the research on fitness and organizational performance and extend this examination to include the positive influences of fitness on the determinants of virtual team performance. Physical Fitness and Productivity/Performance

We posit that physical fitness improves performance through its effects on physiology, mood, and cognitive functioning. Research suggests that fitness affects performance through increases in physical work capacity, improved mood, clearer thinking and improved alertness (Terborg, 1986). For example, in a longitudinal study of 3t23 1 white-collar employees; researchers found that employees who received high performance ratings were also more likely to exercise (i.e. be fit) than those employees receiving low performance ratings (Bemacki & Baun, 1984). Additionally, NASA conducted a study of 237 executives, aged 35-55, and found that 50% of the executives in the high adherence group (i.e. exercised three or more times per week) self-reported increases in work productivity and attitude towards work as compared to 25% in the middle adherence group (i.e. exercised one to two days a week) and 12% in the low adherence group (i.e. exercised less than one day a week) (Gebhardt & Crump, 1990). As noted by Terborg (1986) and Falkenberg (1987), much of

Virtual Team Fitness

231

Team Member

Bedits

of Physical Fitness:

Organizational Performance Outcomes:

Determinants of Virtual Team Performance: ----------_-____---___________ :--------------- ,-----------------:------; Communication

Project ; Flexibility i Commitment # II II II managemezlt #;I I# I . -______-__________’ ~--------------_*--,---------------~------------------. I I I Boundary 1 Selfj InkrPersotlal use of k&nology j II awareness mmagement 1 I spanning j I I I Fig. 1. Model of virtual Team Fitness.

the research on fitness and productivity improvements is based on self-report data, which may lower the internal validity of the study. Indeed, future research with objective measures of physical fitness and productivity is warranted, yet extant research on the relationship between fitness and performance is supportive.

232

KATHI

J. LOVELACE,

CHRISTOPHER

p. NECK AND CHARLES

C. MANZ

We propose that physical fitness also improves the performance of the virtual team. Increases in physical work capacity can positively affect the virtual team member’s ability to work longer without fatigue. This would enable the virtual team member to effectively perform project management tasks and boundary spanning activities. Likewise enhanced mood, clear thinking and improved alertness would positively affect several determinants of virtual team performance such as communication, flexibility, interpersonal awareness, and technological competence. Physical Fitness and Absenteeism/Sick Leave/Health Care Cost

The health benefits of physical fitness are predicted to reduce a person’s risk of illness and therefore the costs associated with those illnesses. Research posits that physically fit employees are absent less often and have lower health care costs than their less fit counterparts because: (a) increased fitness levels lead to improved health; and (b) healthier employees are absent less often (Falkenberg, 1987; Hafen & Hoeger, 1998). For example, Baun, and colleagues found that health care costs as measured by total sick hours and monies paid directly to health care providers were 48% lower for exercisers than for nonexercisers (Baun, Bemacki & Tsai, 1986). Similarly, in a study of over 1700 employees from two insurance companies, a 22% reduction in absenteeism was found in the experimental group of exercisers when compared to a second experimental group of nonexercisers and a control group (Cox, Shephard & Corey, 1981). Moreover, in a study analyzing the relationship between stress and exercise, only participants who scored low in fitness were significantly more likely to visit the health center for illness than those participants who scored high in fitness (Brown, 1991). This suggests that fitness not only directly affects absenteeism and health care, but also can buffer the negative health effects of stressful work conditions. Extending these findings to virtual teams, with their demand for communication and project management skills, flexibility, and interpersonal awareness, we view fitness as a positive way to reduce the negative outcomes of absences and illness and increase the virtual team member’s ability to effectively handle work-related stressors. Physical Fitness and Turnover/Commitment/Attitudes

Little attention has been given to the relationship between fitness and organizational commitment, turnover, and job attitudes (Falkenberg, 1987). Studies analyzing these variables have focused primarily on the effects of employee fitness programs on commitment and turnover. Accordingly, it is posited that employee fitness programs are perceived as an indicator of the organization’s concern for their personal welfare. As such, these employees are

Virtual Team Fitness

233

likely to view the organization favorably and remain committed to the company. As an example, Cox, Shephard and Corey (1981) found that high adherence exercisers had significantly less turnover than nonexercisers. We contend that physically fit virtual team members will possess greater levels of commitment and self-management due to their allegiance with physical activity. In summary, the model of virtual team fitness proposes that physically fit team members can lead to improvements in overall team performance. Our presentation of this model is aimed at conveying the physiological and psychological benefits of fitness, which in turn are related to organizational performance determinants. By categorizing the extant research on fitness and organizational performance determinants, and subsequently describing the relevance of these outcomes to the determinants of virtual team performance we hope to demonstrate the significance of this model for potentially improving virtual team performance.

CONCLUSIONS The virtual work environment offers many benefits and challenges to overall virtual team performance. This new work form allows team members to work across space, time, and organizational boundaries to achieve performance goals (Lipnack & Stamps, 1997). These conditions present virtual team members with the freedom and autonomy to accomplish tasks at their discretion. The virtual team environment also enables greater levels of productivity, which can lead to the assignment of more tasks for which the virtual team member is held responsible. Consequently, we argue that virtual team members must be physically and psychologically healthy to handle the demands of this new organizational form. Physical fitness, with its physiological and psychological benefits, is an important way virtual team members can be healthy and improve overall team performance. Physical fitness offers benefits to both the virtual team member and the organization. Virtual team members benefit through disease prevention and organizational benefits include reduced health care costs and improvements in organizational and team performance. Physical fitness is especially important in virtual work environments that are characterized by multiple demands, limited time, and sedentary work. In addition, as the virtual team member ages, physical fitness offers continued mobility and reduced risk for age-related health problems. All of these claims demonstrate the importance of our model of virtual team fitness. The implications from this model suggest that physically fit team members not only benefit the organization’s bottom line, but

234

KATHI J. LOVELACE, CHRISTOPHER P NECK AND CHARLES C. MANZ

also provide holistic benefits such as increased longevity and improved quality of life.

REFERENCES Banker, R., Field, J., Schroeder, R., & Sinba, K. (1996). Impact of work teams on manufacturing performance: A longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal, 39.867-890. Barry, D. (1991). Managing the bossless team: Lessons in distributed leadership. Organizational Dynamics, (Summer), 31-47. Baun, W., Bemacki, E., & Herd, J. (1987). Corporate health and fitness programs and the prevention of work stress. In: J. Quick, R. Bhagat, J. Dalton & J. Quick @is), Work Srress: Health Care Systems in dte Workplace (pp. 217-234). New York: Praeger. Baun, W., Bemacki, E., 8z Tsai, S. (1986). A preliminary investigation: Effects of a corporate fitness program on absenteeism and health care costs. Joumul of Occupational Medicine, 28, 18-22. Bemacki, E., & Baun, W. (1984). The relationship of job performance to exercise adherence in a corporate fitness program. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 26.529-531. Blair, S. N., Kohl, H. W., Paffenbarger, R. S. Jr., Clark, D. G., Cooper, K. H., & Gibbons, L. W. (1989). Physical fitness and all-cause mortality: A prospective study of healthy men and women. Journal of the American Medical Association, 262(17), 2395-2401. Brandon, J., & Loftin, J. (1991). Relationship of fitness to depression, state and trait anxiety, internal health locus of control and self-control. Percepruul and Motor Skills, 71, 563-568. Brown, J. (1991). Staying fit and staying well: Physical fitness as a moderator of life stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 555-561. Bunce, D., Barrowclough, A., & Morris, I. (1996). The moderating influence of physical fitness on age gradients in vigilance and serial choice responding tasks. Psychology and Aging, 11(4), 671-682. Calle, E., Thun, M., Petrelli, J., Rodrigues, C., & Heath, C. Jr. (1999). Body-mass index and mortality in a prospective cohort of U.S. adults. The New England Journal of Medicine, 341(15), 1097-1105. Campion, M., Medsker, G., & Higgs, A. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850. Chodzko-Zajko, W., t Moore, Ic, (1994). Physical fitness and cognitive functioning in aging. IX J. Holloszy (Ed.), Exercise und Sport Sciences Reviews (pp. 195-220). Baltimore, MD: Williams & W&s. Cohen, S. H. (1980). Compartmental body composition based on the body, nitrogen, potassium, and calcium. American Journal of Physiology, 239, 192-200. Cooper, K. H. (1982). The aerobics program for total well-being. New York: Bantam Books. Cooper, K. H. (1998). Regaining rhe power of youth at any age. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Cotton, R., & Goldstein, R. (I%). (1993). Aerobics instructor manual: The resource forfitness professionals. San Diego, CA: American Council on Exercise. Cox, M., Shephard, R., & Corey, P. (1981). Influence of an employee fitness programme upon fitness, production, and absenteeism. Ergonomics, 24,795-806.

W-tual Team Fitness

235

Crews, D., & Landers, D. (1987). A meta-analytic review of aerobic fitness and reactivity to psychosocial sttessors. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 19(5), S114-Sl20. Daley, A., & Par&t, G. (1996). Physical self-perceptions, aerobic capacity and physical activity in male and female member of a corporate health and fitness club. Percepti and Moror Skills, 83, 1075-1082. DiLorenzo, T., Bargman, E., Stucky-Ropp, R.: Brassington, G., Frensch, P., & LaFontaine, T. (1999). Long term effects of aerobic exercise on psychological outcomes. Preventive Medicine, 28(l), 75-85. Duarte, D., & Snyder, N. (1999). Mustering virtual teams. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Edwards, S., & Gettman, L. (1980). The effect of employee physical fitness on job performance. Personnel Administrator, 25(1 l), 41-61. Engels, H., Drouin, J., Zhu, W., & Kazmierski, J. (1998). Effects of low-impact, moderateintensity exercise training with and without wrist weights on functional capacities and mood states in older adults. Gerontology, 44.239-244. Etnier, J., Salazar, W., Landers, D., Petruzzello, S., Han, M., & Nowell, P. (1997). The influence of physical fitness and exercise upon cognitive functioning: A me&analysis. Joumal of Sport

& hkercise

Psychology,

19,249-277.

Evans, W. J., & Campbell, W. W. (1993). Sarcopenia and age-related changes in the body composition and functional capacity. Journal of Nutrition, 123,465468. Falkenherg, L. (1987). Employee fitness progmms: Their impact on the employee and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 12(3). 5 1l-522. Fiatarone, M. A., Marks, E. C., Ryan, N. D., Meredith, C. N., Lip&z, L. A., & Evans, W. J. (1990). High-intensity strength training in nonagenarians. Journal of the American Medical Association,

263(22),

3029-3034.

Fillingim, R., & Blumenthal, J. (1993). The use of aerobic exercise as a method of stress management. In: I? Lehrer & R.Woolfolk (Eds), Principles and Practice of Stress Management

(pp. 443-462).

New York:

Guilford

Press.

Fleisher, C., Brown, W., & Fleisher, A. (1996). Comprehensive organizational wellness. In: M. Rahim, R. Golembiewski & C. Lundberg (Eds), Curnrnt Topics in Management (Vol. 1, pp. 167-185). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Folkins, C. (1976). Effects of physical training on mood. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32(2), , 385-388. Fontane, P (1996). Exercise, fitness, feeling well. American Behavioml Scientist, 39(3), 288-305. Frew, D. R., & Bruning, N. S. (1988). Improved productivity and job satisfaction through employee exercise programs. Hospital Material Management Quarterly, 9,62-69. Ganster, D., & Schaubroeck, J. (1991). Work stress and employee health. Journal of Management, 27(2), 235-271. Garde& B. (1987). Efficiency and health hazards in mechanized work. In: J. Quick, R. Bhagat, J. Dalton & J. Quick (Eds), Work Stress: Health Care Systems in the Workplace (pp. 50-71). NY Praeger. Gebhardt. D., & Crump, C. (1990). Employee fitness and wellness programs in the workplace. American

Psychologist,

45,262-272.

Guzzo, R., & Dickson, M. (1996). Teams in organizations: Research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47,307-338. Hackman, J. (1988). The design of work teams. In: J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hackman, J. (1990). Groups that work (and those &a? don’t). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

236

KATHI J. LOVELACE, CHRISTOPHER p. NECK AND CHARLES C. MANZ

Hackman, I., & Oldham, G. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Haferr, B., & Hoeger, W. (1998). Wellness: Guidelines for a healthy lifestyle (2nd ed.). Boulder, Co.: Morton Publishing Co. Helmrich, S., Ragland, D., Leung, R., & Paffenbarger, R. (1991). Physical activity and reduce occurrences of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. New England Journal of Medicine, 325,147-152.

Ilgen, D. (1990). Health issues at work: OpJxmunities for industriaJ/organizationaJ psychology. American

Psychologist,

45, 273-283.

Jaffe, D. (1995). The healthy company: Research paradigms for personal and organizational health. In: S. Sauter & L. Murphy (EMS), Organizational Risk Factors for Job Stress (pp. 13-39). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association. Jex, S. (1998). Stress and job performance: Theory, research, and implications for managerial practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (19%). Healthy Work. NY Basic Books. Kinicki, A., McKee, F., & Wade, K. (19%). Annual review, 1991-1995: Occupational health. Journal

of Vocational

Behavior,

49, 190-220.

Lawler, E. (1986). High involvement management. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass. Lawler, E. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high involvement organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology. NY John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Lupinacci, N. S., RikJi, R. E., Jones, C. J., & Ross, D. (1993). Age and physical activity effects on reaction time and digit symbol substitution performance in cognitively active adults. Research Quarterly For Exercise and Sport, 64(2), 144-15 1. Manning, M., Jackson, C., & Fusilier, M. (19%). Occupational stress, social support, and the costs of health care. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 738-750. Manning, W., Keeler, E., Newhouse, J., Sloss, E., & Waserman, J. (1991). The costs of poor health habits. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Manz, C., & Sims, H. (1993). Business without bosses. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Matarazzo, I. (1984). Behavioral health: A 1990 challenge for the health sciences professions. In: J. Matarazzo, S. Weiss, J. Herd, N. Miller & S. Weiss (MS), A Handbook of Health Enhancement and Disease Prevention (pp. 3-40). New York John Wiley & Sons. McAuley, E., Mihalko, S., & Bane, S. (1997). Exercise and self esteem in middle aged adults: Multidimensional relationships and physical fitness and self-efficacy influences. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 20(l), 67-83. McGrath, J. (1964). Social Psychology: A brief introduction. New York: Holt, Winehart and . Winston. Neck, C. P, & Cooper, K. H. (2boo). ‘The executive that could”: Exercise and diet prescriptions for enhanced managerial performance. Academy of Management Executive, 14(2), 72-83. Nouri, S., & Beer, J. (1989). Relations of moderate physical exercise to scores on hostility, aggression, and trait-anxiety. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68(3), 1191-I 195. Ornish, D., Brown, S., Scherwitz, L., Billings, J., Armstrong, W., Ports, T., McLanahan, S., Kirkeeide, R., Brand, R., & Gould, K. (1990). Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease?Lancet,

336(8708),

129-133.

Paolone, A., Lewis, R., Lanigan, W., & Goldstein, M. (1976). Results of two years of exercise training in middle-aged men. Physicians and Sports Medicine, 4( 12). 72-77. Pate, R., Pratt, M., Blair, S., Haskell, W., Macera C., Bouchard, C., Buchner, D., Ettinger, W., Heath, G., King, A., Kriska, A., Leon, A., Marcus, B., Morris, J., Paffenbarger, R., Patrick,

Virtual

Team

237

Fitness

K., Pollock, M., Rippe, J., Sallis, J., & Wilmore, J. (1995). Physical activity and health: A recommendation from the centers for disease control and prevention and the american college of sports medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273(S), 402-407. Reardon, J. (1998). History and impact of worksite welhress. Nursing Economics, 16(3), 117-121. Rosato, F. (1990). Fitness and wellness: The physical connection (2nd ed.). San Francisco,CA: West Publishing Co. Salas, E., Dickinson, T., Converse, S., & Tannenbaum, S.(1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In: R. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds), Teams: Their Training and Performance (pp. 3-30). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Shephard, R. J. (1999). “Do work-site exercise and health programs work?” The Physician and

Sports

Medicine,

27,48-72.

Shephard, R. J. (1994). Aerobic fitness and health. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Sims, H., & Lorenzi, F! (1992). The new leadership paradigm. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Smolin, L. A., & Grossvenor, M. B. (1997). Nutrition: Science and Applications (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Saunders College Publishing. Stewart, G., Manz, C., & Sims, H. (1999). Team work and group dynamics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Tannenbaum, S., Beard, R., & Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. In: K. Kelly (Ed.), Issues, Theory, and Research in IndustriaUOrganizational Psychology (pp. 117153). Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier. Terborg, J. (1986). Health promotion at the worksite: A research challenge for personnel and human resources management. In: G. Ferris & K. Rowland (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (Vol. 4, pp. 225-267). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Townsend, A., DeMarie, S., & Hendrickson, A. (1998). Vial teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive, I2(3), 17-29. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1993). Summary statement: Workshop on physical activity andpublic health. Washington, D.C.: Author. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1981). Cardiovascular Primer For The . Workplace. Health Education Branch, Office of Prevention, Education, and Control; National Hesrt, Lung, and Blood Institute; Public Health Service, & National Institute of Health. NJH Publication No. 81-2210, January. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1996). Physical acfivity and health: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Author. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1997). Current population reports: Americans with disabilities, 1994-1995. Washington, DC.: Author. Van Boxtel, M., Paas, F., Houx, J?,Adam, I., Teeken, J., & Jolles, J. (1997). Aerobic capacity and cognitive performance in a cross-sectional aging study. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 29(10), 1357-1365. Woodruff, S., & Conway, T. (1992). A longitudinal assessment of the impact of health/fitness status and health behavior on perceived quality of life. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75(l), 3-15. Yeats, D., & Hyten, C. (1998). High performance self-managed work teams: A comparison of theory zo practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall.

TWENTY-FIRSTCENTURY TEAMWORK:DEFINING COMPETENCIESFORVIRTUALTEAMS Lisa Horvath and Timothy J. Tobin ABSTRACT The increasing focus on global organizations, horizontal organizational structures and inter-organizational cooperation has created the virtual work team. This paper identijes the research-based similarities and differences between traditional and virtual teams and presents a conceptual framework specifying virtual team competencies based on virtual team petiormance research. Related organizational interventions are presented.

The dual emergence of global organizations and technological advances in communication technologies (Lurey, 1998), coupled with the emergence of environments that require horizontal organizational structures, inter-organizational cooperation and knowledge work (Townsend, DeMarie & Hedrickson, 1998), has forced our work teams to transcend distance, time zones, and organizational boundaries (Lipnack & Stamps, 1997). These new organizational forms have resulted in virtual teams that require the use of information technology (Nemiro, 1998). This changing nature of teams has further brought on a need to reconceptualize how practitioners develop and train people, as well as identify the competencies needed to work effectively in a virtual team environment. Virtual Teams, Volume 8, pages239-258. 0 2001 Published by Elsevier sdence Ltd. ISBN: O-76234343-5 239

LISA HORVATH

240

AND TIMO-l-By J. TOBJN

When it comes to developing virtual teams, little exists to guide human resource practitioners who must design training systems, team building or organizational systems. Preliminary research (Lurey, 1998) and evidence from organizations has indicated that high performing (i.e. advanced) virtual teams may indeed be an oxymoron. In fact, while existing literature is based on colocated teams, empirically based prescriptions, guidelines, and specifications for vi&al team competencies are virtually non-existent for advanced virtual teams. Nevertheless, recent efforts indicate that a systematic approach to establishing the parameters of virtual team training is possible (CannonBowers, Tannenbaum, Salas & Volpe, 1995). In this paper, we present a theoretically driven, competency-based model for understanding requisites for advanced virtual teams. The purpose of this framework is to guide specification of the competencies required for advanced virtual teams, provide a guide for researchers in generating hypotheses and designing experiments to study performance in a virtual team environment, and furnish practitioners with information to assist them in developing organizational interventions. We begin with a general discussion of virtual teams, examining their similarities and differences to co-located teams, in order to provide a context in which to introduce ideas about virtual team competencies. A discussion of team competencies follows, which specifies how they are linked to performance outcomes. Next, we will delineate the main factors that lead to team effectiveness highlighting the factors that are particularly salient for advanced’ virtual teams. We then present the virtual team competencies (expressed as knowledge, skills, and attitudes) needed for effective teamwork in geographically dispersed teams. Finally, we conclude with the implications of the model for designing organizational interventions.

VIRTUAL TEAMS .

Virtual teams are groups ’ of people who transcend spatial, temporal, and organizational boundaries. The focus of this paper will be on spatial boundaries. Virtual teams are ubiquitous and inhabit such diverse fields as education (Hiltz, 1993), science and engineering (Azar, 1994), manufacturing (Horvath & Duarte, 1997), and consulting (Kristof, Brown, Sims 8z Smith, 1995). In these settings, virtual teams are used to conduct research, develop projects, educate and create solutions (Nemiro, 1998). By their very nature, virtual teams use knowledge as their raw material (Walz, Elam & Curtis, 1993). Working through electronic media, their primary tasks are the creation,

menty-First Century Teamwork: Defining Competenciesfor Wrtual Teams

241

gathering, organizing and use of knowledge (Skyrme, 1997). Virtual teams are usually utilized for two purposes: (a) to share existing knowledge (e.g. to rapidly go where it is needed); and (b) to innovate, transitioning ideas into action. Through the use of information technology (Lurey, 1998; McGrath & Hollingshead, 1995; Nemiro, 1998), virtual teams work to achieve common goals (Lipnack & Stamps, 1997). Townsend et al (1998) elaborate on these characteristics to provide an inclusive definition. They state that virtual teams are “groups of geographically and/or organizationally dispersed coworkers that are assembled using a combination of telecommunications and information technologies to accomplish an organizational task” (p. 18). From these definitions, seven major characteristics of virtual teams emerge. Four are characteristics seen in all teams, whereas two are specific to virtual teams. Like any team, a virtual team: (a) is made up of a multiple of individuals; (b) exhibits task interdependence; (c) possesses one or more shared goals; and (d) is embedded in a broader organizational setting (Sundstrom, DeMeuse & Futrell, 1990). Unlike traditional teams, virtual teams: (e) are not restricted by boundaries (individuals from virtual teams not only work in different physical settings but will often work at different times); and (f) carry out communication primarily through information technology. Therefore, the key difference between a virtual team and a traditional work team are their member’s lack of physical proximity. The lack of physical proximity necessitates alternative means of communication. Figure 1 summarizes the similarities and differences between virtual teams and traditional teams. These characteristics, then, serve as the foundation for developing our framework. They provide boundaries as to what constitutes a virtual team and clearly distinguish virtual teams from traditional face-to-face teams. Therefore, to work on a team one must be able to work both collectively and interdependently to achieve a productive outcome. These specialized tasks require specific knowledge, skills and attitudes, generally referred to collectively as competencies. In the next section, we define team competencies and delineate their relationship to team effectiveness.

TEAM COMPETENCIES A competency is generally used to denote a characteristic of a person that results in effective performance on the job (Boyatzis, 1982). Recently, this definition has been expanded to denote a cluster of related knowledge, skills,

LISA HORVATH AND ‘ITIMOTHY J. TOBIN

menty-First

Cenhq

Teamwork: Defining

Competencies for Wrtd

Teams

243

and attitudes that: (1) affect one or more key roles or responsibilities; (2) is correlated with performance; (3) can be measured against standards; and (4) can be improvt~I via training and development (Parry, 1998). It follows that team competencies are used to denote the qualities needed by an individual when working on a team. Theses qualities include: (1) knowledge (principles and concepts underlying the team’s effective task performance); (2) skills (psychomotor and cognitive competencies required to perform the team task effectively); and (3) attitudes (an internal state that intluences a team member’s choices or decisions to act in a way that fosters effective performance). Team competencies are generally viewed in two distinct groups: (1) team-specific competencies which are specific to a particular team and/or task and have meaning only to specific team members; and (2) team generic competencies that are general and transportable to all teams. The conceptual and theoretical work conducted on team competencies has been conducted exclusively on face-to-face teams (e.g. Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995; O’Neil, Chung Br Brown, 1997; Stevens & Campion, 1994). However, as organizations are becoming increasingly global, corporations are asking employees to enact virtual team strategies (Armstrong & Cole, 1995). The Department of Transportation (see Caldwell & Gambon, 1996) estimates that at least 8.4 million U.S. workers are currently members of dispersed teams and predict there will be over 30 million virtual teams in the next few years. Due to the increasing demands of today’s marketplace, implementing effective virtual teaming strategies are a necessity for organizations to meet their business needs. Unfortunately, the wealth of experience that organizations have developed with traditional, co-located teams cannot simply be adapted to the virtual environment (Lurey, 1998). As Armstrong and Cole (1995) describe, “the differences in the effects that distance seems to have on work groups are due at least partially to two sets of integrating practices: (a) practices that help members effectively span distances; and (b) an organizational context and structure that support the group as its members work across distance (p. 21 l).” This paper will define the strategies (e.g. knowledge, skills, and attitudes) needed to effectively work in a virtual team, make general recommendations on training for these competencies, and discuss the potential impact of such interventions. To do this, we present a select review of past virtual team effectiveness research that correlated various knowledge, skills, and attitudes ~4th effective virtual team performance. To begin, we review the general concept of team performance and then look specifically at the research on virtual team effectiveness.

244

LISA HORVATH

AND TIMOTHY J. TOBIN

TEAM PERFORMANCE Numerous authors (see References) have studied the factors that lead to team effectiveness. Cohen and Sailey (1997) present the most complete framework to date for analyzing team effectiveness. They reviewed research on organizational team effectiveness from January, 1990 through April, 1996. Utilizing a broad definition of effectiveness, which includes the performance effectiveness assessed by quantity and quality of outputs (e.g. quality, productivity); member attitudes (e.g. job satisfaction, trust); and behavioral outcomes (e.g. turnover, absenteeism), they delineate performance as a function of four variables: (1) environmental factors; (2) design factors; (3) group processes; and (4) group psychosocial traits. Cohen and Bailey (1997) define each variable as follows: environmental factors are characteristics of the organization’s external environments (e.g. turbulence, industry characteristics);* tusk design includes features of the task, group, aud organization that can be directly manipulated [e.g. autonomy, interdependence, group composition (e.g. size, tenure), and organizational context (e.g. rewards, supervision, work processes)]; group processes are interactions that occur between group members and with outside constituents (e.g. conflict, communication)3; and group psychosocial fruits are shared understandings, beliefs and culture (e.g. norms, shared mental models). Cohen and Bailey ( 1997) see task, organizational, and environmental factors having direct and indirect impacts on effectiveness via group processes and group psychosocial traits. As stated before, the defining difference between a virtual team and a traditional team is a team member’s proximity. In a traditional team, members meet face-to-face. In a virtual team, members are dispersed geographically. This absence of physical boundaries usually requires groups to communicate through technology. Therefore, we can conjecture that this structural component of the team context has an indirect impact on the effectiveness of the team, which is mediated through a team’s internal and external process and ps$chosocial traits (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). In the next section, we will review the research on virtual teams as it relates to group process, psychosocial traits and effectiveness. Virtual Team Petiormance

Only a few studies have examined the dynamics and effectiveness of virtual teams (i.e. Nemiro, 1998). A majority of research in this area has been conducted in the laboratory or with temporary student groups and has focused on the implementation of computer-mediated communication technologies

Twenty-First

Century Teamwork: Defining

Competencies for Wtual

Teams

245

(Hollingshead & McGrath, 1995). The research on communication technologies usually involves ad hoc groups using computer systems for a single session. This research usually ignores group and member variables (Hollingshead & McGrath, 1995). A few studies have examined virtual teams and their members in an organizational context (Kristof et al., 1995; Lurey, 1998; Nemiro, 1998). Since we are interested in high performing vittual steams located in organizational settings, we will review the literature most pertinent and representative of that setting. Hence, our literature review is limited to research that is field-based literature on virtual teams and experimental research on asynchronous teams (in which team members work at different times). The research reviewed on virtual teams has examined process variables, group psychosocial variables and outcome variables. We will review each of these variables. Group

Processes

The research on process variables on virtual teams examines five distinct intrateam processes: (a) communication; (b) decision-making; (c) conflict management; (d) leadership; and (e) coordination. The research indicates that the proximity of team members in a virtual context inhibits some of the intrateam process. The research to date has demonstrated that virtual team members can exchange verbal information as efficiently as a face-to-face team members, however, their ability for non-verbal exchange is severely limited, which can contribute to increased misunderstanding. In addition, decision-making and conflict management processes are slowed down; especially in the short term in a virtual environment. Leadership and cdfndination abilities seemed to be the most influenced by proximity. Vial teams have a difficult time establishing, exhibiting, and continuing leadership and coordination procedures which may imply suboptimization for a virtual team. Therefore, it follows that virtual team members must develop skills in non-verbal communication, expedient decision making, interpersonal relations, and leadership. See Table 1 for a review of the research and related findings on group processes in virtual teams. In the next section, we will examine group psychosocial traits in virtual teams. Group Psychosocial Traits The research on group psychosocial traits in virtual teams is limited. Research on norms, for example, has looked at participation levels and group cohesiveness and found no significant differences on the types of norms

246

LISA HORVATH

Table 1.

AND TIMOTHY

J. TOBm

Group Process Variables and Related Research Findings.

Group Process Variables

Research Findings: Wrtlcal Teams (VT) Teams (lT)

Communication

l

l

Decision-Making

l

Conflict Management

l

l

Research

vs. Traditional

Verbal Information Exchange similar Non-Verbal Exchange Present in TT none in VT. Longer decision making process in VT than 1T Short Term: Faster conflict resolution in Tf than VT Long Tem:No difference

l

l

l

l

l

l

Melymoka, 1997 (report of on-going research Warkentin, Sayeed and Hightower (1997) Gallup and McKeen (1990) Burke and Chidambaram ww Chidambaram, Bostrom and Wynne (1991) Kiesler, Siefel and McGuire (1984)

Leadership

l

TT better expression of leadership than VT

l

l

Coordination

l

lT more coordination exhibited than VT

l

Burke and Chidambaram (1994) Eveland and Bikson (1989) Burke and Chidambaram ww

established in virtual teams and co-located teams. However, research has established some differences on the process in which a group develops trust with one another. Research indicates that virtual teams establish deterrencebased trust, knowledge-based trust and identification-based trust (Jarvenpaa, Knoll & Leidner, 1998). In traditional teams, development of trust is often a slow process. In virtual teams, however, it tends to beestablished right from the outset. Research also demonstrates that virtual teams displayed a ‘group mind’ more often than face-to-face teams. For instance, virtual team members consistently shifted from their initial individual preference to the group preference quicker than those individuals in a face-to-face team (Gallup & McKeen, 1990; Kiesler, Siefel & McGuire, 1984). More research is needed to determine how such psychosocial factors contribute to shifting of choices. It follows that virtual team members need to have a collective orientation and mutual trust. See Table 2 for a review of the research and related findings on group psychosocial traits

senty-First

Table 2.

Century Teamwork: Defining

Competencies for virtual

Teams

241

Group Psychosocial Variables and Related Research Findings.

Group Psychosocial Variables

Affect (Trust) Norm (Cohesiveness)

Research Findings: Wrtual Teams (VT) vs. Traditional Teams (TT) l

l

Different patterns of trust in VT as compared to IT No Differences

Research

l

l

l

l

l

Norms (Participation)

l

No Differences

l

l

l

l l

Mental Models (Choice Shift)

l

VT Shifted More From Individual Preferences to Group Choices than ‘IT

l l

Jarvenpaa, Knoll and Leidner (1998) Burke and Chidambaram (1994) Burke, Chidambaram and Locke (1995) Chidambaram, Bostrom and Wynne (1991) Warkentin, Sayeed and Hightower (1997) Burke and Chidambaram (1994) Burke, Chidambaram and Locke (1995) Jarvenpaa, Rao and Huber (1988) Smith and Vanecek (1990) Watson, DeSanctis and Poole (1988) Gallup and McKeen (1990) Kiesler, Siefel and McGuire. (1984)

.

in virtual teams. In the next section, we will examine group performance in virtual teams. Outcome Variables The research on outcome variables relating virtual teams to traditional teams finds little differences between the two environments. Viial team members did report less satisfaction with the process. However, team members reported no discernable differences on satisfaction with the task. Viial teams do seem to be an environment in which more and higher quality ideas can be effectively generated. However, it appears that virtual teams have a difficult time in generating a quality decision. Finally, the creativity process appears to be similar in virtual teams and traditional teams. However, research demonstrates that virtual team members

LISA HORVATH AND TIMXI-IY

248

T&e 3. Outcome Variables

J. TOBIN

Outcome Variables and Related Research Findings. Research Findings: Wtual

Research

Teams (VT) vs. Traditional Teams (TT)

Satisfaction

9 Task Satisfaction:

No

l

Difference l

Process Satisfaction: VT members less satisfied than members of TJ

l

l

Burke, Chidambaram and Locke (1995) Warkentin, Sayeed and Hightower (1997) Cass, Heintz and Kaiser

ww l

Jessup and Tan& (1991) Kiesler, Siefel and McCiuire (1984)

l

Cass, Heintz and Kaiser

l

Decision Quality

Number of Ideas

l

l

l

Creativity

l

Mixed Results (Some research finds no difference; some research finds TT have better decision quality) Most of tbe research shows VT developing more ideas that ‘PT. However there are some contradictory results Appear the VT generate higher quality ideas Information Sharing, Personal Bond

w92)

l

l

l

Valacich, George, Nunamaker and Vogel ( 1994) Chidambaram and Jones (1993)

Nemiro (1997)

tapped into working on a creative process report the need to spend time on information sharing and personal bonds (e.g. Nemiro, 1998). Review the findings in this area: virtual team have higher quality idea than virtual team, a difficult time generating a quality decision than tradition team and a creative process similar to traditional teams. It appears that a virtual team may be similar to a nominal group where social factor are controlled to eliminate dominance by one or two members so ideas are generated more effectively. It follows that virtual team members need to develop skills in communication and interpersonal relations. See Table 3 for a review of the research and related findings on outcome variables related to virtual teams. In the next section, we review the framework generated from the literature presented.

Twenty-First

Century Teamwork: Defining

Competencies for Wrtual Teams

249

ADVANCED VIRTUAL TEAM FRAMEWORK Based on the literature review, Fig. 2 presents our framework. This framework is intended as a guide for those implementing, managing or researching virtual teams. The framework highlights areas in which virtual team context creates certain potential difficulties for high performance. Referring to Fig. 1, three things should be noted. First, the framework depicts three areas that are at the core of high performance in teams. These are: context, process, and psychosocial traits. As noted previously, research supports that these areas are associated with high performance virtual teams. Therefore, to the extent possible, we suggest that organizations target each of these areas when implementing, developing and managing virtual teams. Second, to provide more clarity in the framework, each of these areas are highlighted by their variable manifestations that were derived from the literature. The framework also suggests that the task of the virtual teams affects the whole situation. For example, a virtual team and its related processes and psychosocial traits may be an effective environment for an idea-generating task versus a decision-making task. Finally, the framework suggests that individuals on virtual teams need to develop skills in communication, interpersonal relations, decision making, leadership and attitudes regarding a collective orientation, mutual trust and cohesion. We present these competencies in the next section. Finally, we have focused on skills and attitudes. Knowledge tends to be context specific. In general, in a virtual team environment members must have technical and teamwork knowledge to accomplish their task (Lurey, 1998). .

VIRTUAL TEAM COMPETENCIES

Empirical research supported a positive relationship between performance and six competencies; four in the broad category of teamwork skills; two in teamwork attitudes. They include commwication, relationship building and management, decision making and implementation, virtual leadership and attitudes regarding a collective understanding, and expedient trust. These competencies are particularly difficult to develop in a virtual environment. Each competency is defined below through its respective components. (1) Communication

is defined as using verbal, nonverbal and written communication processes to achieve results, and understanding when and where to use various communication processes (Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas & Volpe, 1995).

CoMeti

Psyctmochl

Shift)

Traits

the Core Dimensions

t

Affcd (Trwt) cohcsiMental tvlodcls Models (Choice Pluticipstioa

Grorp

7

Fig. 2. A Model for Understanding

T=!+-v commuaication Two or Mae People

Fluid Membership ~-YDispcrsad shralGo0ls

Vlrtaml Tar

Decision hbking Speed Non-verbal tlmitumication short-tam clmtlict lbiamgacnt

of Teamwork.

l1

SStiShction

clativity Decision QmMy lda-

olttcoacs

fienty-First Century Teamwork: Defining Competenciesfor virtual Teams

251

Communication is not just the act of sharing information. Exchanges must be characterized by mutual respect, appropriate and timely sharing of information, and genuine solicitation of others’ feedback and opinions through written communications. In a virtual environment, individuals must be skilled at communication without non-verbal cues (e.g. sharing information), which involves learning to clearly articulate one’s ideas and learning to ask clarifying questions in order to avoid miscommunications. (2) Relationship

Building and Management is defined as the ability to efectively munage and develop task and process interactions with others and effectively managing stress and ambiguity.

The ability to resolve conflict and cooperate requires developing a relationship with other team members - a psychological contract. Given the lack of proximity in a virtual team, ambiguity increases due to the lack of cues and information which in turn increases stress with individual who require mote definitive communication and data. Although virtual teams must often operate as if they trust one another is appears that true relationships are slower to develop and therefore the related conflict resolution and cooperation skills are slower to develop. Individuals in virtual teams need to learn how to share work, support team decisions and find agreeable solutions in an expedient manner. (3) Leadership

is defined us the ability to influence, direct, coordinate and coach others in a diverse environment and assessing and providing pertinent information and feedback on the individual and group level of . analysis.

In a virtual environment it is particularly important that members know how to lead, direct and accept leadership when geographically dispersed. This involves linking with employees, setting clear expectations and providing necessary feedback electronically. In some cases, role responsibility may shift throughout the life of a virtual team, based on knowledge (expertise) for example. Members should have the flexibility/adaptability to shift based on the needs. This first step requires recognizing the needs. (4) Decision

Making

integrate inform&ion action.

and Implementation

is defined as the ability to

by questioning others and converting decisions into

In a virtual team, members generate many quality solutions, however they find it difficult to select the best possible solution. Therefore team members need to

LISA HORVATH

252

develop skills in collectively information.

and electronically

AND TIMOTHY J. TOBIN evaluating

and linking

Attitudes

(5) Collective Understanding

is defined as an attraction to the collective level of understanding. It involves the capacity to see and accept the collective level in a dispersed atmosphere.

We noted earlier that in a virtual team, less coordination is exhibited than in a traditional team (Burke & Chidambaram, 1994). On the other hand, in terms of mental models, virtual teams were found to shift more from individual preferences to group choices (Gallupe & McKeen, 1990; Kiesler, Siegel & McGuire, 1984). It is hypothesized that this group mind exhibition may in fact be an indication that differences of opinion are not expressed. Viial team members need to learn skills to constructively voice disagreement and agreement. This will allow for members to collectively and constructively work together. (6) Swift Trust is defined as an attitude held by team members regarding interdependent work; a collective perception and relating that allows for the managing of vulnerability uncertainty, risk and expectations where the opinions of team members are valued, and members are respected, almost immediately(Meyerson, Weick & Kramer 1997).

Research has demonstrated that different patterns of trust exist in virtual teams as compared to traditional teams (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998). In a virtual team, it is important to establish mutual trust in order to accommodate the sharing of ideas. An environment of mutual trust will contribute to the quality of group outcomes by allowing the team to innovate and transition ideas into action. Team members need to be skilled in managing their vulnerability uncertainty, risk and expectations and learn to value and respect members alrnost I immediately. The six competencies associated with virtual teams discussed in this section provide a starting point for linking skills, and/or attitudes, to organizational interventions in a virtual team environment. According to Goldstein (1993), however, “the analysis of job tasks and performance requirements, and the matching of these [competencies] is at this time as much an art as a technology” (p. 25). Based on our framework and the supporting literature, we extracted key principles and general considerations for effective virtual team development. We present these guiding principles in the conclusion.

Twenty-First

Century Teamwork: Defining

Competencies for Virtual Teams

253

CONCLUSION Our conclusion is that the nature and characteristics of virtual teams simultaneously reduce some of the barriers to effective team outcomes while imposing other constraints. Hollingshead and McGrath (1994) identify advantages along two dimensions: (a) information; and (b) participation. The first advantage acknowledges the potential for improving access to information and information processing capability. The second key advantage, participation, recognizes the potential of virtual teams for expanding opportunities for team members to participate by reducing (or eliminating) boundaries. The primary constraint imposed by virtual teams exists within the modalities of communication. For example, the very notion of virtual teams limits the availability of non-verbal cues and the subsequent richness of information exchanged between members. Moving beyond specific characteristics and the associated outcomes impacting virtual team performance, there are several process components to consider in terms of the link between virtual teams and performance. These include process components such as virtual team building, changes in work and interaction, and challenges associated with processes, structures, functions, and technology. The conclusions in this section offer general principles and guidelines as a starting point for training any virtual team. In addition, we provide general guidelines to organizations looking to develop highly effective virtual teams. As we consider training specifications for virtual teams, we are reminded of the idea that social research can be either simple, generalizable, or accurate or some combination of any two (Thorngate, 1976; Weick, 1979). The function of training is to be accurate, while remaining as simple as possible. It is important to note that the specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes identified in this paper are generalizable competencies appropriate for any virtual team. In addition to the general competencies discussed here, virtual teams interested in competency training will ‘also need to identify competencies that are associated with their specific task. Within the seven broad competencies discussed, it is likely that specific subcompetencies (i.e. knowledge, skills, and attitudes) will need to be identified in order to maximize virtual team performance. For example, in developing cohesion in a virtual team, it may be prudent to focus training on a more specific level of skill, such as relationship building rather than focusing too broadly. Similarly, in establishing communication, training efforts may be focused on knowledge of a specific technological tool.

254

LISA HORVATH

AND TIMOTHY

J. TOBIN

The key steps to training a virtual team is to: (a) identify the skills that currently exist; and (b) define those that are needed (e.g. gap analysis). In addition, one must identify the types of skills (e.g. cognitive, behavioral) that will be required for the virtual team to obtain optimal performance is important. Cascio (1998) states that the overall goal of training is to “link training content to desired task behaviors” (p. 262), and goes on to discuss six steps associated with defining what is to be learned. They include: (a) analysis of the training and development subsystem (in this case, the virtual team) and its interaction with other subsystems; (b) determine training needs; (c) specify training objectives [and liuk them to reward structures]; (d) decompose the learning task into its structural components (i.e. identify the specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes associated with competencies for a virtual team); (e) determine optimal sequencing of components; and (f) consider alternative ways of learning. Consideration of these general training principles, and identification of the specific competency components required for a given virtual team, will have an impact on virtual team outcomes. However, there are aspects of virtual teams that go beyond the scope of training. In the concluding paragraphs, we examine the organization components that link virtual teams and performance. These include process components such as virtual team building, changes in work and interaction, and challenges associated with processes, structures, functions, and technology. In terms of team building, Townsend et al. (1998) suggest a “new team sociology” is needed as workers interact in virtual mode. They see the issue extending beyond the technological consideration of linking the team together to include rebuilding the interpersonal interaction necessary for overall effectiveness. Further, it is the virtual team building process that offers the potential for a team to recreate the way in which work is done. Virtual team building, therefore, is essential in terms of identifying and defining processes and procedures, roles and relationships, and contributing to the establishment of culture. Croup psychosocial factors, including changes in work and interaction are also necessary process considerations that ultimately contribute to team performance. Because of characteristics such as fluidity, it is essential that team members are quickly assimilated into the team and participate. Similarly, because of the boundarylessness of virtual teams, members must recognize ways in which to effectively and accurately express themselves without the benefits of non-verbal interactions (Hollingshead & McCirath, 1995; Townsend et al., 1998). The socialization processes of the virtual team further defines the virtual team culture. In addition, the changes in work and interaction affect the

liuenty-First

Century Teamwork: Dejning

Competencies for virtual

Teams

mission, goals, and objectives and the processes implemented them.

255 to achieve

Additionally, aspects of virtual team processes, which impact performance, lie in the challenges associated with processes, structures, functions, and technology. These components are grouped together, because, as a whole, they define the context in which the virtual team operates (Townsend et al., 1998). Structural challenges include characteristics such as geographic/spatial dispersion of members. Technologically, members are provided some form of technological medium and must adapt accordingly. Similarly, members must be capable of adapting to changes within team functions and processes. The aforementioned competencies and their respective challenges and opportunities ultimately impacts the performance of virtual teams. While the very nature and characteristics of virtual teams simultaneously reduce some barriers to performance and impose others, successful management of the virtual teams processes, and recognition of the associated strengths and weaknesses of working in a virtual environment can, and does, contribute to high performance of virtual teams. Both empirical and conceptual research was examined to support this finding. In conclusion, this review of the literature has demonstrated that effective virtual teams require the recognition and development of group processes and psychosocial traits. Similarly, it has provided indications for potential areas to examine when virtual teams are not

performing to their potential.

NOTES 1. In tbis paper an advanced virtual team is considered synonymous with effective verbal team. We use Cohen and Bailey’s (1997) broad definition of effectiveness,which includes the performance effectivenessassessedby quantity and quality of outputs (e.g. quality, productivity); member attitudes (e.g. job satisfaction, trust); and behavioral outcomes (e.g. turnover, absenteeism),they delineate performance as a function of four variables: (1) environmental factors; (2) design factors; (3) group processes; and (4) group psychosocial traits. 2. In this model environmental factors inside to tbe organization but external to the team are addressedin task design variable. 3. Tbis variable includes issuesrelated to interpersonal issues.

REFERENCES Armstrong, D., & Cole, l? (1995). Managing distances and diffexences in geographically distributed work group. In: S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds), Divers@ in Work Teams: Research Paradigms for a Changing Workplace (pp. 187-215). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

LISA HORVATH AND TIMOTHY J. TOBIN

256

Azar, B. (1994). Computers create global research lab. The APA Mot&or, 25, l&16. Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The Competent Manager. New York John Wiley & Sons. Burke, K., & Chidambaram, L. (1994). Development in electronically supported groups: A preliminary longitudinal study of distributed and face-to-face meetings. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, III, pp. 104-I 13. Burke, K., Chidambaram, L., & Locke, I. (1995). Evolution of relational factors over time: A study of distributed and non-distributed meetings. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (vol. 4). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press. Caldwell, B., & Gambron, J. (1996). The virtual office gets real-It’s more than just fantasy. In fact, virtual teams are saving money and boosting productivity at America West, IBM, and elsewhere. InformationWeek, (January 22) 32-34. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C., (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel

Psychology,

46,823-850.

Campion, M., Papper, E., & Medsker, G. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A Replication and extension, Personnel Psychology, 49,429-452. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In: R. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds), Team EIfectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations (pp. 33-380). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Cascio, W. F. (1998). Appliedpsychology in human resource management (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cass, K., Heintz, T. J., & Kaiser, K. M. (1992). An investigation of satisfaction when using a voice synchronous DGSS in dispersed meetings. Information and Management, 23(4), 172-182. Chidambaram, L., Bostrom, R. P., & Wynne, B. E. (1991). The impact of GDSS on group development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(3), 3-25. Chidambaram, L., & Jones, B. (1993). Impact of communication medium and computer support on group perceptions and performance: A comparison of face-to-face and dispersed meetings. MIS Quarterly, I7(4), 465491. Cohen, S. C., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239-290. Eveland, J. D., & B&son, T. K. (1989). Work group structures and computer support: A field experiment. ACM Transactions on Ofice Information Systems, 6,. 354-379. Gallupe, R. B., & McKeen, J. (1990). Enhancing computer mediated communication: An experimental study into the use of a decision support system for face-to-face versus remote meetings. Information and Management, 18, 1-13. Goldstein, I. L. (1993). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Hiltz, S. R. (1993). Correlates of learning is a virtual classroom. Znternational Journal of ManMachine Studies, 39, 71-98. Hollingshead, A. B., & McGrath, J. E. (1995). Computer-assisted groups: A critical review of the empirical research on team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. In: R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations (pp. 46-78). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Twenty-First Horvath,

Century Teamwork: Defining

Competencies for Mrtual Teams

257

L., & Duarte, D. (1997). Rethinking boundaryless organizations: A Framework for the implementation and management of virtual teams in the global high-performance organization. Academy of Human Resource Development Proceedings, 245-252. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., Jr Leidner, D. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, Z4(4), 29-64. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Rao, R. S., & Huber, G. l? (1988). Computer support for meetings of medium sized groups working on unstructured problems: A field experiment. MIS Quarterly, Z&4), 645-666. Jessup, L. M., & Tansik, D. A. (1991). Group problem solving in an automated environment: The effects of anonymity and proximity on group process and outcome with a group decision support system. Decision Sciences, 22.266-279. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39( lo), 1123-l 134. Kristof, A., Brown, K., Sims, H., & Smith, K. (1995). The virtual team: A case study and inductive model. In: M. Beyerlein & D. Johnson (Eds), Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams: Knowledge Teams the Creative Edge (Vol. 2, pp. 229-253). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). virtuul teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology. New York John Wiley & Son, Inc. Lurey, J. S. (1998). A study of best practices in designing and supporting virtual teams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. California School of Professional Psychology-Los Angeles. McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1994). Groups interacting with technology: Ideas, evidence, issues, and an agenda. Sage Publications. Melymuka, M. (1997). Virtual Realities. Computerworld, 28, 70-72. 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 in Theory and Research (pp. 166-195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Nemiro, J. E. (1998). Creativity in Wrtuul Teams. The Claremont Graduate School,Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation: Claremont. O’Neil, H. F., Chung, G. K. W. K., & Brown, R. S. (1997). Use of Network Simulations as a l Context to Measure Team Competencies. In: H. F. O’Neil Jr. (Ed.), Workforce Readiness: Competencies and Assessment. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erblaum Associates, Publishers. Parry, S. B. (1998). Just what is a competency? Training, (June). Skyrme, D. (1997). Knowledge management: Oxymoron or dynamic duo. Managing Information, 4(7), 16-18. Smith, J., & Vanecek, M. (1990). Dispersed group decision making using non-simultaneous computer conferencing: A report of research. Journal of Munugement Science, 7(2), 71-92. Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). Knowledge, skills, and abilities for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20,503-530. Sundstrom, E., Demeuse, K. l?, & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 12&133. Thomgate, W. (1976). “In general” versus “it depends”: Some comments on the Gergen-Schlenker debate. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 404410. Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 17-29.

258

LISA HORVATH AND TIMOTHY J. TOBIN

Valacich, J. S., George, J. F., Nunamaker, Jr., J. E, & Vogel, D. R. (1994). Physical proximity effects on computer-mediated group idea generation. Small Group Research, 25(l), 83-104. Walz, D. B., Elam, J. J., Curtis. B., (1993). Inside a software design team: Knowledge acquisition, sharing and integration. Communication of the ACM, 36.10. Warkentin, M., Sayeed, L., & Hightower, R. (1997). Vii teams versus face-to-face teams: An exploratory study of a web-based conference systems. Decision Science, 28(4), 975-996. Watson, R., DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1988). Using a GDSS to facilitate group consensus: Some intended and unintended consequences. MIS Quurtererly,12.463478. Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychoZogy of organizing (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Bill.