How Virtual are Virtual Teams? Review of Selected Definitions and Measurements of the Virtuality

• Autorzy: Magda Ferretti
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

People nowadays very often work from home or different business sites and can build teams of individuals based in many different locations, sometimes continents apart that have never met each other face to face but cooperate thanks to communication technologies. Such teams are known as virtual teams. It is rare to meet the teams that are not virtual at least to some extent (Kirkman & Mathieu, 2005). What is surprising is the fact that there is no agreement among researchers on how to define virtuality nor how to measure it. Because the phenomenon of virtual teams is very promising from both practical and theoretical perspectives, the aims of this article are following: to compare definitions of virtual teams, to check how virtuality was measured in selected empirical studies. Also, to present results of my empirical research on 206 individuals with two different measures of virtuality (distance between team members and a number of face-to-face meetings). In conclusions, virtuality as a feature of any team is presented, and researchers are encouraged to include virtuality dimension in the wider research on the teams. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Virtual team; Virtualization; High-tech

PL

Zespół wirtualny; Wirtualizacja; Nowe technologie

• Czasopismo: Business and Non-profit Organizations Facing Increased Competition and Growing Customers' Demands
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: 15
• Strony: 87--106

Twórcy

autor

Magda Ferretti

• Warsaw School of Economics, Poland

Bibliografia

• Bell, B.S., & Kozlowski, S. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group Organizational Management, 27(1), 14-50.
• Carte, T.A., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. (2006). Emergent Leadership in Self-Managed Virtual Teams: A Longitudinal Study of Concentrated and Shared Leadership Behaviors. Group Decision and Negotiation,15(4), 323-343.
• Chudoba, K.M., Wynn, E., Lu, M., & Watson-Manheim, M.B. (2005). How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization. Information Systems Journal, 15, 279-306.
• Cohen, S.G., & Gibson, C.B. (2003). In the beginning: Introduction and framework. In S.G. Cohen & C.B. Gibson (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 1-13). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Fiol, C.M., & O'Connor, E.J. (2005). Identification in face-to-face, hybrid, and pure virtual teams: Untangling the contradictions. Organization Science16(1), 19-32.
• Foster, M.K., Abbey, A., Callow, M.A., Zu, X., & Wilbon, A.D. (2015). Rethinking virtuality and its impact on teams, Small Group Research, 46(3), 267-299.
• Gibson C.B., Huang, L., Kirkman, B.L., & Shapiro, D.L. (2014). Where global and virtual meet: The value of examining the intersection of these elements in twenty-first-century teams. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 217-244.
• Gibson, C.B., & Gibbs, J.L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 451-495.
• Gilson, L.L., Maynard, M.T., Young, N.C.J., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2014). Virtual Teams Research 10 Years, 10 Themes, and 10 Opportunities. Journal of Management, 41, 1313-1337.
• Griffith, T.L., & Neale, M.A. (2001). Information processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual teams: from nascent knowledge to transactive memory. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 23, 379-421.
• Griffith, T.L., Sawyer, J.E., & Neale, M.A. (2003). Virtualness and knowledge in teams: Managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quarterly 27(2), 265-287.
• Herbsleb, J. D. (2007). Global software engineering: The future of socio-technical coordination. In: Proceeding FOSE '07 2007 Future of Software Engineering (pp. 188-198). Washington: IEEE Computer Society Washington.
• Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16, 290-307.
• Hoegl, M., & Muethel, M. (2016). Enabling Shared Leadership in Virtual Project Teams: A Practitioners' Guide. Project Management Journal, 47(1), 7-12.
• Hollenbeck, J.R., Beersma, B., & Schouten, M.E. (2012). Beyond team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Academy of Management Review, 37, 82-106.
• Huettermann, H., Doering, S., & Boerner, S. (2014). Leadership and team identification: Exploring the followers' perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 413-432.
• Joy-Matthews, J., & Gladstone, B. (1999). Extending the group: A strategy for virtual team formation. Industrial and Commercial Training 39(1), 24-29.
• Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31, 700-718.
• Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P.E., & Gibson, C.B. (2003). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: the moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 175-192.
• Martins, L.L., Gilson, L.L., & Maynard, M.T. (2004). Virtual teams. What do we know and where do we go from here. Journal of Management, 30(6), 805-835.
• Maznevski, M.L., & Chudoba, K.M. (2000). Bridging space over time: global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11, 473-92.
• Minton-Eversole, T. (2012, 19 July). Virtual teams used most by global organizations, survey says. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/organizational-and-employee-development/pages/virtualteamsusedmostbyglobalorganizations,surveysays.aspx.
• Muethel, M., Gehrlein, S., & Hoegl, M. (2012). Socio-demographic factors and shared lea- dership behaviors in dispersed teams: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management, 51(4), 525-548.
• O'Leary, M.B., & Cummings, J.N. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion. MIS Quarterly, 31, 433-452.
• O'Leary, M.B., & Mortensen, M. (2010). Go (Con)figure: Subgroups, imbalance, and isolates in geographically dispersed teams. Organizational Science, 21(1), 115-31.
• Ocker, R.J., Huang, H.Y., Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S.R. (2011). Leadership dynamics in partially distributed teams: An exploratory study of the effects of configuration and distance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 20(3), 273-292.
• Olson, G.M., & Olson, J.S. (2000). Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15, 139-178.
• Ortiz de Guinea, A., Webster, J., & Staples, D.S. (2012). A meta-analysis of the consequences of virtualness on team functioning. Information & Management 49(6), 301-308.
• Schweitzer, L., & Duxbury, L. (2010). Conceptualizing and measuring the virtuality of teams. Information Systems Journal, 20, 267-295.
• Van der Vegt, G.S., & Bunderson, J.S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532-547.
• Watson-Manheim, M. B., Chudoba, K. M., & Crowston, K. (2002). Discontinuities and continuities: A new way to understand virtual work. Information Technology & People, 15, 191-209.
• Zigurs, I. (2003). Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity? Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 339-351.