International Virtual Teams: a Student Experiment

International Virtual Teams: A Student Experiment

Patricia C. Borstorff, Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, AL USA

Michael Featherstone, Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, AL USA

Gonca TelliYamamoto, Okan University, Mecidiyeköy, Turkey

Abstract

The concept of utilizing teams in business is a necessary component of conducting daily operations and addressing changes in the business environment. Moreover, globalization has forced companies to respond, change, and adapt to the ever-increasing volatility of competition in the marketplace. Virtual teams integrate the human element withtechnology. In our study using an international multi-cultural virtual team experiment between U.S. and Turkish teams, we found cross-cultural relationships, knowledge sharing, technology integration, and time factors to be challenging for communication and end user satisfaction.Lack of cultural training hampered some interactions. However, participants rated this hands-on class experiment as a highlight of their education.

Introduction

Virtual teams are becoming a standard component of global business organizations. The globalization of business and technological advances continue to drive this virtual team phenomenon that will likely continue to increase and develop into the foreseeable future. Virtual groups differ from face to face groups. Onedifference is that they are often geographically distributed, forcing individuals to overcome “space, time, and organizational boundaries” (Ahuja, Galletta, and Carley, 2003). Communication is repeatedly identified as the key to a successful virtual team. Thus, communication and its various components are a focus of this research.

Virtual teams can typically be identified by their attributes. Virtual teams are a functioning team – interdependent in task management, having shared responsibility for outcomes, and collectively managing relationships across organizational boundaries.Team members are geographically dispersed and rely on technology-mediated communications rather than face-to-face interaction to accomplish tasks (Zakaria, Amelinckx and Wilemon, 2004).

Communication in Virtual Teams

The potential advantages of this type of collaboration are numerous, including efficiency of project execution, removal of physical boundaries, integration and optimization of competencies, and the ability to form new partnerships (Chinowsky & Rojas, 2003). In addition, virtual teams offer the opportunity to create culturally diverse solutions, promote creativity and a sense of oneness among team members. This can also encourage a greater acceptance of new ideas, providing a competitive advantage for multinational companies. Otheradvantages are cost savings associated with travel and lodging, time differentiation which allows the project to be ‘always active’ and access to some of the best people in the company joining discussions at a small cost (Furnham, 2000).

The disadvantages of virtual teams are that often they tend to use a more time-consuming decision making process. When miscommunications and misunderstandings occur, stress and conflicts among team members increase. The distance and time zones between team members can make solving these problems significantly more difficult (Zakaria, Amelinckx and Wilemon, 2004). Cultural challenges of significantly diverse countries may exacerbate the problems.

Trust and Communication

One of the keys to success with regards to communication is trust between team members. Team members must feel open to express their points of view without fear of criticism from others. This challenge can be further complicated if team members have never met each other or know little about the person other than their position on the team.

The swift trust theory suggests that team members import expectations of trust from familiar settings. In virtual teams, there is typically very little time set aside for team members to develop any type of personal relationships. Employees are often selected for virtual teams based on a diverse skills set, with little or no consideration given to a history of working together. And there is a likelihood they will not work together again in the future. When these factors are combined with tight deadlines and high stress environments, it is clearly not an optimal environment for relationship building (Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999). It is important for employees to make a good first impression with their team (Gatlin-Watts and Carson, 2007). A bad first impression complicates the interpersonal relationship and inhibits the development of trust which is a primary requisite for effective communication within the team.

Even though technology mediated communication channels initially lower relational intimacy,the members of virtual teams can develop ways of exchanging socio-emotional communication, including group feelings and attitudes. Research has shown that members of a group using computers will gradually develop close relational ties, but it does take considerably more time (Van der Kleij, Schraagen, Werkhaven, & DeDreu, 2009; WarkentinBeranek, 1999). As technology continues to evolve, the degree of separation between the participants has become much smaller. One might speculate that popular student sites such as FaceBook, YouTube, and Google Plus might play a significant role in expediting trust formulation. It seems likely that as team members become moreaccustomed to various manifestations of the virtual meeting place, the element of trust will become easier to obtain.

Social Presence

Social presence becomes a factor with regards to trust and communication. Social presence refers to the ability of a communication medium to allow a group member to feel the presence of other group members and to feel that the group is jointly involved in communicative interaction. The extent of social presence seems torely on the ability of the communication medium channels to transmit rich information such as verbal cues, facial expressions, gaze, gestures, posture, physical proximity, and back channeling cues. According to Andres (2002), as the variety of these channels decrease in a communication medium, less attention is paid to the presence of other participants engaged in a communications session. If team members are unable to see these non-verbal cues, the result is that the social distance between them increases (Hakkinen, 2004).

Communication in virtual environments requires that strategies be developed to account for the lack of nonverbal cues. Some researchers theorize that communication is predominately nonverbal, which clearly leaves much work to be done with regards to virtual teams and methods. Individuals in a virtual team experience need to be sensitized to the importance of nonverbal cues since a good communication system is critical for the organization (Roebuck, Brock, and Moodie, 2004)

National Cultural Constraints on Communication

The effect of national culture on communications is pronounced in virtual teams. Individuals from different cultures vary in their communication and group behaviors, including how they disclose information about themselves and even their need to share information concerning a project or organization. (Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999). Studies by Ross, Jones and Adams (2008) revealed that sensitivity to a business partner’s culture will lead to better communication. This cultural sensitivity has been defined as an understanding of, and adaptation to, the partner’s domestic business practices as perceived by the partner.

Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture

The studies by Geert Hofstede’s, a Dutch sociologist and respected authority in the field of global culture, defined five cultural dimensions. Knowledge of these dimensionscan assist virtual team members in understanding their colleagues. Hofstede (1980) developed his cultural dimensions and types for classifying, as well as differentiating, among countries. The most significant for communicating in virtual teams is individualism versus collectivism, low-high context, and uncertainty avoidance.

Individual-Collectivism

One dimension of cultural variability is individual-collectivism which is considered to be the most important in teams. Inindividualistic cultures, the needs, values and goals of the individual take precedence over the needs, values, and goals of the group. In collectivist cultures, it is the opposite. Individualists also tend to have more open and frank communication than individuals from collectivist cultures (Sosik, 2002). Additionally, research identifies these individuals as showing a higher propensity to respond to ambiguous messages. This has been interpreted to be a trusting behavior, suggesting that individuals from individualistic cultures may be more likely to trust individuals in a virtual team environment (Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999).

Global virtual team members whose cultures value collectivism are likely to appreciate working within a team setting and the relationship building associated with it. However, they may experience feelings of isolation since team members are geographically separated and it may be troublesome to them to work without frequent group input.

For those from cultures that place a high value on individual effort, members from collectivist cultures may seem overly needy and demanding; conversely, individualistic colleagues may be perceived as cold and not true team players by collectivist members (Zakaria et al, 2004).

Individualistic team members will likely voice their opinions more readily and challenge the direction of the team. They will also want direct feedback on their performance and rewards closely tied to their performance. Collectivists will be more likely to consult their colleagues prior to making a decision. Collectivists don’t need specific job descriptions or roles, but will do whatever is needed for the team, ideally together with other team members. Collectivists prefer face-to-face meetings instead of virtual meetings. They will also likely feel embarrassed if singled out for praise or an individual incentive award (Goodbody, 2004).

Low and High Context

Another dimension that might impact virtual team communication is the high –low context index. Certain cultures can be seen as ‘high context”. These cultures rely more heavily upon the external environment for behavioral cues. The people of high context cultures value subtle and more indirect communication styles. They may be less direct in their communication styles and use more formality in initial contact as the relational environment is unclear. Conversely, in low context culture communication, less emphasis is placed on non-verbal or behavioral cues and communication tends to be more direct, with an avoidance of ambiguity. They may be less formal and perceived as even discourteous by high context group members (Hofstede, 1980).

Uncertainty Avoidance

This measures how much members of this country accept ambiguity and tolerate uncertainty. High UA countries prefer predictable patterns and long-term commitments in business. Punctuality, formality, job security, and retirement benefits would be valued here. Having less alternatives would be preferred as that would simplify decision making and lessen ambiguity.

An awareness of these cultural intricacies, particularly those that might create tension or be seen as disrespectful is an important element in virtual team communications. Intra-group conflict may lessen in frequency and degree when there is a clear understanding among group members of the respective cultures (Zakaria et al, 2004).

Conflict in Virtual Team Communication

Communication affects almost every aspect of work. Social psychological research has made predictions about the effect of computer mediated communication on group conflict. Computer mediated communication appears to reduce the extent of courtesy and respect participants would normally have towards one another. It appears that the mediated communication depersonalizes the interaction, leading to greater concentration on the message rather than the interacting persons. It was noted that mediated interactions tended to be less inhibited resulting in less consensus. Overall, mediated communication causes higher levels of affective conflict (characterized by anger or hostility) and task conflict (disagreement focused on work content) as group members do not censor their comments and lack sensitivity to the preferences of their team members (Hinds and Bailey, 2000; Oertig, 2006). Task conflict is thought to have a negative relationship to virtual team performance. Sharing complex information and coming to consensus on even simple tasks can be difficult for dispersed teams. Hinds and Bailey (2000) contend that team members neglect to communicate essential information because they forget either that their distant colleagues do not have access to the same information or that they simply have a different contextual perspective.

The purpose of our student virtual team experiment was to investigate group dynamics in a multi-cultural virtual team and to discern, if possible, the impact of culture on the interactions of the teams. We also were guided by Newman and Hermans (2007) investigation of perceptions of MBA students. They found the students felt classroom theory did not always transfer directly to practicum in their field, professors at business schools lack the necessary business experience, and little experiential learning is offered. Our goal was to contradict these notions at our respective universities. We also wanted to investigatethe technology-mediated communication challenges faced by virtual teams.

Conclusions

Virtual teams are often the only choice companies have when their organizations are facing global challenges. Team learning is a global strategy used by cross-functional teams to provide the best results within a tight deadline. Collaboration across boundaries prevents nonproductive competition and ideas from being lost or unvalued. Managers, whether in Turkey or in the United States, must define and develop universal strategies to communicate across borders by forming virtual business teams and by understanding the different culture dimensions and social contexts that are present in each country. This ability, or inability, to communicate and understand the different dimensions of culture will ultimately decide just how effective and successful the organization will be.

Having an opportunity in a virtual enterprises class can go a long way in preparing workers to have the open mindedness and flexibility necessary to be successful in a virtual world. Virtual communication training may prove to be a valuable tool if it can help people develop the skills that they need to communicate effectively.

REFERENCES

Ahuja, Manju K., Galletta, Dennis F. & Carley, Kathleen M. (2003). Individual Centrality and Performance in Virtual R & D Groups: An Empirical Study. Management Science, Vol. 49, No. 1, 21 – 38

Andres, Hayward P. (2002). A Comparison of Face To Face and Virtual Software Development Teams. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8, No. ½ , 39 – 48

Chinowsky, Paul S. & Rojas, Eddy M. (2003). Virtual Teams: Guide to Successful Implementation. Journal of Management In Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 3

Cox, T., Lobel, S.A., & McLeod, P.L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 827-847.

Furnham, Adrian (2000), Work In 2020,. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 3, 242 – 254

Gatlin-Watts, R. & Carson, M. (2007). A guide to global virtual teaming. Team Performance Management, 12(2), 47-52.

Goodbody, Jenny (2005). Critical Success Factors for Global Virtual Teams.

Strategic Communication Management, Vol. 9, Issue 2

Gatlin-Watts, R. & Carson, M. (2007). A guide to global virtual teaming. Team Performance Management, 12(2), 47-52.

Hakkinen, Paivi (2004). What Makes Learning and Understanding in Virtual Teams So Difficult. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, Vol. 7, No. 2

Hinds, Pamela J. & Bailey, Diane E. (2000). Virtual Teams: Anticipating the Impact of Virtuality on Team Process and Performance. Academy of Management Proceedings

Hofstede, G.J. (1980). Culture’s Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede.G, (2001), Cultural Dimension, Itim international.

Hofstede, G (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories.Academy of Management Executive, 7(1), 83-93.

Holton, A.J. (2001). Building trust and Collaboration in a virtual team. Team Performance Management, 7, 36-43.

Jarvenpaa, Sifkka L. 1992. Staying Connected and Coordinated: The Do’s and Don’ts.

Chapter 8: Building Trust from a Distance. NY: MacMillan Company.

Jarvenpaa, Sifkka L. & Leidner, Dorothy E. (1999). Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Organization Science Vol. 10 , No. 6, 791 – 815

Newman, A. & Hermans C. Breaking the MBA Delivery Mould: A virtual international multi-group MBA/Practitioner collaborative project. Marketing Education Review, Spring 2008, Vol. 18 Issue 1, p9-14

Oertig, M. & Buergi, T. The challenges of managing cross-cultural virtual project teams.Team Performance Management, 2006, Vol. 12 Issue 1/2, p23-30

Roebuck, Deborah Britt, Brock, Stephen J., & Moodie, Douglas R. (2004). Using a Simulation to Explore the Challenges of Communicating In a Virtual Team. Business Communications Quarterly, Volume 67, No. 3, 359-367

Ross, M., Jones, E., & Adams, S. Can team effectiveness be predicted?Team Performance Management, Aug2008, Vol. 14 Issue 5, p248-268

Saunders, C., Van Slyke, C., & Vogel, D. My time or yours? Managing time visions in global virtual teams.Academy of Management Executive, Feb 2004, Vol. 18 Issue 1, p19-31

Sosik, J.J. & Jung, D.I. (2002). Work-group characteristics and performance in collectivistic and individualistic cultures. Journal of Social Psychology, 142(1), 5-23

Souren P., Samarah, I.M., Seetharaman, P., & Mykytyn, P. (2005). An empirical investigation of collaborative conflict management style in group support system-based global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(3), 185-222.

van der Kleij, R., Schraagen, J., Werkhoven, P., & De Dreu, C. (2009). How Conversations Change Over Time in Face-to-Face and Video-Mediated Communication. Small Group Research, 40(4), 355-381.

Warkentin, Merrill & Beranek, Peggy M. (1999). Training to Improve Virtual Team Communication. Information Systems Journal 9, 271 - 289

Zakaria, Norhayati, Amelinckx, Andrea & Wilemon, David (2004). Working Together Apart? Building a Knowledge-Sharing Culture for Global Virtual Teams. Creativity And Innovation Management, Vol. 13, No. 1.

1