VIRTUAL TEAMS

Virtual Teams: Selection and Assessment of Team Members

The concept of virtual teams has existed for more than two decades (Terrie, 1987;

Kirkman, Rosen, Gibson, Tesluk and McPherson, 1995; Coyle and Schnaar, 1995), however, the

technology to fully optimize the benefits of a team with members in different parts of the world

in support of a common set of goals is relatively new and appears to be evolving. It is

conceivable that the pace of technology has in some ways outstripped the capability of workers

to keep up and adapt in a way where they can make a proactive and substantive contribution to

organizational goals. Based on initial research into this area of concern, there appears to be

insufficient guidance available to human resource (HR) practitioners and business managers in

determining which employees are a good fit for a virtual team, what predictors can be used to

accurately determine suitability, and how to effectively evaluate candidates for virtual

assignments in advance to avoid failures and degraded productivity.

This paper will evaluate the current literature discussing theoretical and practical research

of organizational practices in determining predictors of success when assigning employees and

other members to a virtual team. The literature review spans four key areas of research that

frame the discussion and proposed approach for future research: the virtual team environment;

critical success factors in a virtual team; individual behaviors and other factors contributing to

team efficacy; and current practices in assessment for vetting and assigning virtual team

members. Based on the evaluation of current practices, a research approach is proposed that will

build on the currently defined success factors, and measure them in the context of how they

would be applied in a virtual team setting.

 VIRTUAL TEAMS
2

Problem Statement

There has been significant research into the technical underpinnings of the virtual team

environment, principally focused on the design and schematic work on the necessary information

technology (IT) infrastructure needed to connect far-flung team members using electronic

communication tools and resources (Badrinarayanan and Arnett, 2008; Henttonen and

Blomqvist, 2005). Additionally, the capabilities and requirements of an individual to effectively

manage such a virtual team are fairly well defined, at least based on what is known today about

boundary-spanning teamwork and communications (Cascio, 2000; Hertel, Geister and Konradt,

2005; Gibson and Cohen, 2003; Thomas and Bostrom, 2010). Largely missing from the research

are meaningful instruments and vetting tools to determine which team members can perform in

the virtual team environment. Without such predictors in place, the assignment of team members

is largely a trial-and-error exercise, leading to dysfunctional teams that underperform and may be

counterproductive to the goals of the parent organization (Thomas and Bostrom, 2010).

This is further reinforced in an MIT Sloan study on virtual teams, working in partnership

with global software developer SAP to evaluate 80 teams across 28 locations, including Brazil,

China, Germany and the United States. What the authors found is that subject matter expertise

and individual availability to participate on the team are often the sole criteria for the selection of

individuals for assignment to a virtual team. If a virtual team is going to have any chance of

achieving its assigned goals, those responsible for building the team must also take into account

the interpersonal and social skills and teamwork orientation of the proposed members, along with

their capacity and willingness to work in a “dispersed team” environment (Siebdrat, Hoegl and

Ernst, 2009).
 VIRTUAL TEAMS
3

Knowledge workers in particular must master the ability to work in virtual teams and

other non-traditional, technology-based settings in order to remain relevant (Meister and

Willyerd, 2010). In The 2020 Workplace: How Innovative Companies Attract, Develop and

Keep Tomorrow’s Employees Today, the authors describe the “über-connected (230)”

organization of the next decade and outline the keys to success in the workplace of the future, all

based on the ability to effectively communicate, collaborate and work with counterparts that are

in other parts of the world. They outline ten key areas where human resources can play a key

role, among them driving systems thinking, creating an inclusive culture, becoming “über-

connected” and adopting a global mind-set (236).

Research Question

In response to today’s business environment and the envisioned “über-connected”

workplace of the future, what assessment tools and resources can human resources professionals

offer to their supported organizations that will accurately predict the likelihood of success of

individual contributors prior to assigning them to virtual teams?

Background

Identifying appropriate assessment tools and resources for the selection and assignment

of individuals to virtual teams is predicated on a clear understanding of the nuances and

conditions of the virtual team itself (Helms and Raiszadeh, 2002). Based on the research, there

appears to be a logical clustering that begins with an understanding of the virtual team

environment, proceeds to the success factors of a virtual team, then addresses the necessary
 VIRTUAL TEAMS
4

knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) an individual needs to be successful in such a team, and

finally provides the assessment and selection tools and criteria currently available.

The Virtual Team Environment

Virtual teams are a necessary response to the increasingly complex and diffuse nature of

business in a global economy that relies heavily on technology, networks and strategic

partnerships (Lurey and Raisinghani, 2001). When correctly structured and implemented, the

virtual team is capable of providing the parent organization with flexibility to meet the constantly

changing competitive market, at the same time creating boundary-spanning potential into

different markets, countries and alliances that may have been inaccessible in the traditional

organizational model.

One of the first authors to lay claim to the term “virtual corporation,” (Davidow and

Malone, 1992) put a finer point on this emerging theme in The Future Arrived Yesterday, stating:

“Every trend in the corporate world – technological, managerial, financial, and cultural – is

pushing companies toward ever-greater virtualization, the dismantling of every traditional

organizational structure, and their replacement with networks of free agents (Malone, 2009).”

According to Malone, employees are increasingly finding themselves in a constant state of

change, in which decentralization and flattening of hierarchies is the norm and constant

reorganization is fundamentally changing the way we work within a corporation. As free agents,

employees take on a greater responsibility to seek out opportunities to apply their skill sets and

act as entrepreneurs within their own companies.

 VIRTUAL TEAMS
5

Hertel, Geister and Konradt offer the following definition of virtual teams: “Virtual teams

consist of two or more persons who collaborate interactively to achieve common goals, while at

least one of the team members works at a different location, organization, or at a different time

so that communication and coordination is predominantly based on electronic communication

media (2005, pg. 3).”

More simply put, a virtual team is “a physically dispersed task group that conducts its

business through modern information technology (Kreitner, Kinicki and Cole, 2007). The

common denominator in every definition reviewed appears to be the distance between members

of the team, and the use of technology to overcome distance in order to achieve assigned goals

and objectives.

This definition is further clarified by an increased dependence upon computer mediated

communication (CMC) tools, and collaboration on work that is distributed across one or more

dimensions (Hertel, Geister and Konradt, 2005). Lurey and Raisinghani identified the following

computer-mediated methods of exchanging information among members of the virtual team, in

order of frequency of use: e-mail; shared databases and groupware; and video conferencing

(2001). While their study is nearly ten years old at the time of this writing, it appears that e-mail

continues to rank first in use, at least in frequency. Thomas and Bostrom, using the alternative

term “information and communication technology” (ICT), identify e-mail, telephone calls, and

audio conferencing as the primary methods of virtual team communication (2010).

It should not be assumed that a virtual team is comprised of the members of a common

employer, as increasingly there are cases where such teams are constructed to include outside

consultants, other strategic partners and businesses, and individuals with specific skill sets that
 VIRTUAL TEAMS
6

would otherwise not be available to the team and its parent organization (Cascio, 2000). When

managed correctly, these “alliances” have the potential to break down barriers and rapidly

collaborate on projects such as new product development, engineering and architectural projects,

consulting and others requiring intensive knowledge work (Cascio, 2000).

According to Peterson and Stohr there are seven basic types of virtual teams: networked

teams; parallel teams; project teams; production teams; service teams; management teams; and

action teams (2003). This research will focus primarily on the virtual project team, which

typically works together for a defined period of time, with assigned tasks that are non-routine,

expected results that are observable and measurable, and where the team itself has decision-

making authority (Tabari and Kaboli, 2004).

“Can teams that don’t spend time physically together be effective?” So begins a

McKinsey Quarterly article exploring virtual teams (Benson-Armer and Hsier, 1997, pg. 19). To

complete the thought, “The answer is yes – so long as they can find a way to build credibility and

trust (19).” As companies were just beginning to embrace e-mail and as globalization was

beginning to take hold in 1997, McKinsey evaluated a number of companies that had begun the

implementation of virtual organizations and virtual teams in support of specific business

objectives, such as Boeing Corporation. In support of Boeing’s 777-series aircraft design and

manufacturing project, 230 cross-functional teams were utilized, with up to 40 members on any

given team. This global effort involved around 500 suppliers spanning 12 countries, as well as

four airline customers. Such is the nature of today’s increasingly complex and networked

business model, which necessitates the ability to work across geographical, cultural and in some

cases corporate boundaries to achieve business results. To succeed in such a scenario, virtual
 VIRTUAL TEAMS
7

teams are needed that can effectively communicate, overcome cultural differences, create

relationships based on trust, and master the technology needed to keep the project moving

(Benson-Armer and Hsier, 1997).

Jon R. Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith posited four “team basics” in their book, The

Wisdom of Teams. These “basics” are cited in the McKinsey article (Benson-Armer and Hsier,

1997): complementary skills, goals, accountability and a common approach to the work. These

“basics” are common to all teams, but in the virtual team environment these become more

critical and more difficult to manage. Because of the virtual nature of the team, the authors

observed that teams struggled to get the resources and support that they needed to get the job

done, requiring the teams to be more resourceful.

In establishing a virtual team, once a clear purpose has been set, it is necessary to

evaluate factors that can contribute to the success of the team as well as those factors which

might derail its progress (Beyerlein, 2008). Using Lewin’s force field analysis, the author

presents the following scenario of driving and restraining forces related to virtual teams:

Table 1. Force Field Analysis.

Driving Forces   Restraining Forces

Excitement about the project Status quo – the inertia of historical
context
Supportive management style Limited access to information
(clearances)
Sufficient time and resources Technical issues, e.g. computer
platforms
Alignment to strategic priorities Conflicting cultural context of
individuals
Team record of success Language differences and
vocabulary
The right mix of people and Technical skills and background
expertise
Good informal leadership Competing priorities and time
 VIRTUAL TEAMS
8

commitments
Clarity of the project and goals Time zone differences

Beyerlein offers these driving and restraining forces as examples, and the list is not

comprehensive. His recommendation is that managers take the time to consider the goals of the

virtual team, the environmental factors that may help or hinder the team in its mission, and look

for ways to overcome the restraining forces. He also proposes the use of a scoring system for the

driving and restraining forces, using positive scores for drivers and negative scores for restraints

to ensure that the initial start has any likelihood of being successful based on the analysis of the

scores and steps taken to mitigate the restraining forces.

Virtual Team Success Factors

In The Handbook of High Performance Virtual Teams, Stavros offers some perspectives

on “sensemaking” within the virtual team environment, summarizing with a “five C” model that

includes: clarity, connection (and coordination), candor, co-creation and commitment (2008).

While originally designed for an academic setting, these principles appear to have relevance for a

typical virtual team setting as they draw on lessons learned in a distributed learning environment

and in embracing new tools for communication and collaboration in the classroom that are

equally applicable in a virtual team environment.

Lurey and Raisinghani offer a number of predictors for success of a virtual team in their

study, listed here in rank order based on mean score (with 5.0 being the highest possible score):

job characteristics (3.47); executive leadership style (3.17); team members satisfaction (3.14);
 VIRTUAL TEAMS
9

reward system (3.03); internal team leadership (3.01); tools and technologies (2.95); selection

procedures (2.85); team members relations (2.83); and team process (2.71) (2001).

The authors derived the following from their research, based on the analysis of correlated

data, and provide the following recommended steps in implementing virtual teams: designing

team processes that support the workflow and team interaction; facilitate and encourage effective

team relations and communications; develop a reward system that takes into account the

dynamics and work product of a team; and ensure that qualified members are selected for the

virtual team (Lurey and Raisinghani, 2001).

The following four “cornerstones” are presented as necessary elements in the

development and sustainability of a virtual team: direction, competence, opportunity and

motivation (Harwood, 2008), also referred to as the DCOM model. Direction is required in order

for the team to have a purpose; performance against the defined objectives is predicated upon the

competence of the team members; technology underpins the successful interactions of the team,

creating opportunity to perform; and motivation is achieved, at least in part, through the

communications, feedback loops, and acknowledgement of the respective team members’

contributions.

Performance, team member satisfaction, team learning capacity, and stakeholder

satisfaction are identified as key to the effectiveness of a team (Newman, 2005). Within the team

or group, one or more members may play a role in conflict management and mediation; seeking

compromise; acting as gatekeepers to ensure full participation and control of the flow of

communication; and encouragement to create a supportive climate where all members feel

valued (Newman, 2005).

 VIRTUAL TEAMS
10

There are certain processes and supporting behaviors required for a group to function and

perform, among them seeking, sharing and clarifying information; initiating activities;

elaborating and summarizing; and moving the group to consensus (Newman, 2005). These hold

true for groups and teams that meet face-to-face as well as those convening virtually.

As a part of an early research experiment with 18 cross-functional virtual teams at Sabre,

Inc., the following three dimensions of “virtuality” were identified and evaluated: time spent

together as a time versus time apart; dispersion of team members to multiple locations; and time

dedicated to the specific nature of the virtual team project. These dimensions could be further

refined to read time, distance, and involvement. To compensate for or span these dimensions,

virtual teams need to build trust quickly, create synergy and effective group processes, focus on

inclusion and involvement of all team members, seek team members who have the necessary

technical and interpersonal skills, and develop effective feedback loops (Kirkman, Rosen,

Gibson, Tesluk and McPherson, 1995).

To create predictability and to develop patterns of repeatable behavior, the use of

processes and the establishment of protocols very early in the team’s formation improves the

likelihood of effective engagement of team members and collaboration among the team. To this

end, Hoefling has created a team development process checklist (2008) that outlines

considerations for team assignment and factors for success. For example, it is important to have

an understanding early on as to the previous experience the team’s members have in similar

virtual settings, and to gain insights based on their lessons learned. It can be helpful to

understand their career goals and aspirations to check for alignment with the purpose of the team,
 VIRTUAL TEAMS
11

and to evaluate and assess the inclusiveness and communication capabilities each person brings

to the team.

The Hoefling checklist provides an implicit statement of the success factors in the outline

of the following planning and interaction elements: stating and clarifying goals; identifying

available resources; setting performance standards; establishing roles and responsibilities for all

team members; defining decision making process and authority of members; and setting the

approach for communications and collaboration (2008).

Breakdowns in team effectiveness tend to occur as a result of poor communication or

gaps in understanding that lead to poor performance or disengagement of team members (Gibson

and Cohen, 2003; Kerber and Buono 2004). Virtual team leaders need to effectively address the

following five hurdles and areas of weakness to ensure that the virtual team can succeed:

external constraints; internal constraints; effectiveness of information and communication

technology (ICT) resources; intra-organizational trust and relationship issues; and ICT

knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) (Thomas and Bostrom, 2010).

Individual Behaviors and Factors

Whether an individual can be successful working in a virtual environment may depend

upon their “fit” for that type of structure, and a person-environment (P-E) fit study was

conducted by Shin (2004) to evaluate the congruence of any given individual’s attributes,

capabilities and work style preferences to those required in the typical structure and setting of a

virtual team. The individual attributes tested included: autonomy, flexibility, diversity, trust,

computer literacy, time management skills and the ability to work autonomously. Based upon
 VIRTUAL TEAMS
12

values assigned to each of these attributes for matching against the person-organization, person-

group and person-job fit, the P-E fit study was able to yield individual scores in predicted

performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intentions (729).

Based on this study, Shin highlighted the following attributes as most closely correlated

with success in a virtual team setting: high autonomy, flexibility, valuing diversity, and

willingness to trust others. These findings are directly relevant to human resources (HR)

practitioners as they can serve as desired attributes in the recruiting process as well as in the

training and development efforts of the parent organization seeking to launch high-performing

and effective virtual teams (2004, 739).

In order to effectively design assessment instruments to predict the success of prospective

virtual team members, it is essential to have a working list of the necessary knowledge, skills and

abilities (KSAs) that are most closely aligned to the work of a virtual team. These will likely

include some or all of the following: proficiency with technology tools; knowledge and practice

of etiquette for electronic communication; the ability to build effective relationships and work as

a member of a team; communication (in writing and via electronic media such as

videoconference) in a virtual setting and across cultures; the ability to work with data; ability to

manage projects; and the ability to exercise self-management to include effective time and

priority management, initiative and professional development (Management Assistance Program,

2009).

Building on related work in the academic field, Newman (2005) offers an extensive list

of the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) of effective virtual team members, including:

Table 2. KSAs of Effective Virtual Team Members.

 VIRTUAL TEAMS
13

Listens effectively Well organized Objective

Communicates often Provides feedback Respects others
Shows initiative Flexible Positive attitude
Trustworthy/ dependable Dedicated to doing a Self-motivated
good job
Willing to do their fair Open to the views of Provides work in a
share others timely fashion
Reads and understands Works well without Able to compromise /
the material supervision reach consensus
Communicates
effectively through
writing

“Technology is the remote worker’s lifeline (Cascio, 2000, pg. 82).” Consequently, one

of the key skills required for an individual to succeed in a virtual team environment is a high

level of capability and comfort with technology and computer-based tools, software and other

resources (Management Assistance Program, 2009).

Finally, while alluded to earlier in this paper, the need for virtual team members to be

self-sufficient and self-managing is quite possibly the linchpin of the virtual team’s ability to

function for any significant period of time. Because it is not possible for a team manager to apply

traditional methods of control and oversight with a virtual team (Siebdrat, Hoegl and Ernst,

2009), increasingly those management responsibilities are diffuse and fall to the individual team

members to deal with situations that inevitably arise and to take initiative to solve problems

rather than waiting for management intervention. Consequently, this skill set must be carefully

defined and included in any vetting criteria that will be used for the assignment of individuals to

a virtual team.

Assessment and Vetting

 VIRTUAL TEAMS
14

For a virtual team to be effective, it must first satisfy the same principles, or “basics” as

identified by Katzenbach and Smith, as those of face-to-face teams: complementary skills, goals,

accountability and a common approach to the work. In addition, the virtual team must be able to

take on additional functions of self-sufficiency and performance across time and space,

including: production and task performance; team member support; and maintenance of group

well-being (Järvenpää and Leidner 1998).

Based on extensive research of the available assessment tools and resources that are

available, the following four tools are presented as potential starting points for accurately

predicting the success of a team member being considered for assignment to a virtual team: the

Virtual Team Competency Inventory (VTCI) (Hertel, G., Konradt and Voss, 2006); the

Organizational Precursors Assessment tool (Willett, 2000); the Virtual Team Operations survey

(Steege, 2003); and an adaptation of the Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs) of Effective

Virtual Team Members list discussed earlier in this paper (Newman, 2005).

In the Sabre, Inc. study, some of the best practices that emerged in the selection process

included the use of relevant behavioral interviewing questions, coupled with simulations of the

work environment to evaluate individual work styles and tendencies; and the use of interview

and screening panels comprised of employees with actual experience on a virtual team. Their

purpose was to elicit responses from potential team members that would show whether the

candidates had the necessary balance of technical and interpersonal skills to succeed on a virtual

team (Kirkman, Rosen, Gibson, Tesluk and McPherson, 1995).

The figure below provides a theoretical framework for the Virtual Team Competency

Index (Hertel, Konradt and Voss, 2006), which is based on an analysis of the following 11
 VIRTUAL TEAMS
15

individual attributes (referred to by the authors as “subscales”): loyalty, integrity,

conscientiousness, cooperativeness, communication skills, learning motivation, creativity,

independence, persistence, interpersonal trust, and intercultural knowledge, skills and abilities

(KSAs). These attributes are analyzed in the context of the task work, teamwork and tele-

cooperation KSA groupings. In their study, Hertel, Konradt and Voss were able to validate ten of

the 11 subscales based on their correlation with team member performance and motivation, with

the one exception being intercultural KSAs due to insufficient experience in this area among the

tested population.
VIRTUAL TEAMS
16

Figure 1. Virtual Team Competency Inventory (VTCI).

 VIRTUAL TEAMS
17

An effective assessment tool should take into account the purpose of the virtual team; the

knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) that will be required to perform and achieve the defined

team goals; and a way to measure individual personality type, traits, preferences and

characteristics (including cultural nuance) which could positively or negatively impact the

overall composition, interactions and success of the team (Bing, 2004). Coincidentally, Dr. Bing

is the founder and chairman of ITAP International, which offers another instrument called the

“Global Team Process Questionnaire (GTPQ)” which was considered for this project but ruled

out as it provides measurement of the global team in place, without any observed predictive

capability for vetting potential candidates for a virtual team.

 VIRTUAL TEAMS
18

Research Proposal

Purpose

The purpose of this research is to identify, through testing and longitudinal evaluation of

results, an assessment tool that can accurately predict the success of an individual in a virtual

team environment, given the purpose of the team and the technical knowledge, skills and abilities

(KSAs) that are necessary to contribute to the team’s goals.

In order to evaluate assessment tools and resources that HR should make available to

accurately predict the likelihood of success of individual contributors prior to assigning them to

virtual teams, some success factors are necessary with which to gauge the efficacy and predictive

capability of the given instruments. For the purpose of this study, the following five criteria will

be used to evaluate whether a successful outcome was realized, and to establish its linkage to the

selection of team members at the onset of the project: the ultimate results of the team’s work;

retention of team members (Shin, 2004); individual satisfaction of team members (Shin, 2004;

Newman, 2005); stakeholder satisfaction with the team’s contribution and/or results (Newman,

2005); and an analysis of the criteria used to validate the initial assignment of team members.

The general characteristics of the virtual team environment to be evaluated in this

research will be as follows: within the virtual project team setting, a collaborative effort that can

be classified as “knowledge work,” in support of a multinational or global organization with

team members in at least two different countries and representing at least two different functional

areas of the supported business.

Methodology
 VIRTUAL TEAMS
19

To determine an assessment tool with a greater likelihood of predicting individual

success and resultant virtual team effectiveness, an initial pilot study is likely the most

appropriate starting point. Four anticipated virtual project teams will be selected within the same

parent organization, and for each of the teams on of the four tools will be assigned for use in the

selection and vetting of potential team members.

Figure 2. Overview of Research Methodology and Timing of Questionnaires.

?
In the table above, there are three points at which the questionnaire would be

administered to key stakeholders in the virtual team process: prior to each team’s official start on

Form
their respective projects; at the early stage of performance; and upon conclusion of the team’s

assigned role, whether based on their ultimate success in achievement of goals or in their

dissolution based on other factors. Team One will use the Organizational Precursors Assessment

(OPA) to determine candidate “fit” (Shin, 2004) for the team. Team Two will use the Virtual

Team Operations (VTO) tool. Team Three will use the Virtual Team Competency Inventory
 VIRTUAL TEAMS
20

(VTCI) tool. Finally, Team Four will use the Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs) of Virtual

Team Members evaluation criteria.

At the onset, each team member will complete a questionnaire that gauges their level of

individual satisfaction with the team they have been assigned. Once each team reaches its

performing stage, the team members will once again complete a satisfaction questionnaire. In

addition, the team leader will complete a similar questionnaire that also queries their

observations on team efficacy, cooperation and interaction between the team members. Finally,

once each of the teams has completed the assigned tasks or is otherwise determined to have

reached a point where the team is no longer required, individual members will complete a more

comprehensive questionnaire that evaluates their individual level of satisfaction, commitment to

the organization, and a subjective assessment of the contributions of the other team members.

The team leader will complete a similar questionnaire, as will the virtual team’s principle

customer or recipient of the final work product. Success will be based on a qualitative analysis of

the survey results yielding a score in each of the following areas: results of the team’s work;

team member satisfaction; team member commitment to the organization; and stakeholder

satisfaction with the final work product or team results.

The four assessment instruments will be tested discretely in the pilot phase, and the

candidates being considered for each of the four selected teams will complete only one of the

assessments. At each of the two subsequent survey stages, all participating team members will

complete a questionnaire that evaluates the following impressions and satisfaction indicators,

loosely based on the work of Lurey and Raisinghani in their “Virtual Teams Survey” designed

and implemented in cooperation with PricewaterhouseCoopers (2001):

 VIRTUAL TEAMS
21

- Clarity of role at time of assignment (self)

- Method of assignment to the team (overall)

- Level of technical competence (self, others)

- Level of subject matter competence (self, others)

- Level of personal satisfaction with team (overall)

- Extent of ability to contribute and add value (self)

- Effectiveness of team interactions (overall)

Based on the results of each series of questionnaires, it should be possible to identify

common elements of success and failure in the team performance that can be attributed to

individual strengths and weaknesses. It will be necessary to evaluate these individual effects in

the context of what could reasonably be determined at the onset, during the selection phase, and

draw correlations between areas of strength that made observable positive impacts on the team’s

performance as well as those areas of weakness that inhibited the team’s performance.

Conclusion

Now that virtual teams have become more or less standard components of modern

business practices, it is important that human resources practitioners put forward the most

effective tools and resources available to help their supported organizations realize the benefits

and competitive advantages of virtual teams while minimizing the potentially negative impacts

of teams bound together by technology. For more than two decades, much research has been

carried out and much more has been written on the creation, implementation and management of

virtual teams. However, remarkably little research exists to aid in the selection, training and
 VIRTUAL TEAMS
22

development of team members prior to their assignment to a virtual team. As a result, technology

is being introduced to speed up and streamline virtual team processes that are not fully

optimized, leading in some cases to increased efficiency in the short term but more frequently

causing frustration, misunderstandings, team dysfunction and other human side effects, in part

because the capability of technology is not calibrated to the readiness of the team members.

This observation on the mismatch of technology and human interaction is touched on in a

Harvard Business Review article and related case study, wherein the authors noted that the

companies which overlooked the interpersonal aspects of virtual teamwork significantly

underperformed those teams where technology and human resource requirements were addressed

in tandem. And in cases where the enabling technology was the sole focus: “The computer

revolution missed a step. When companies went from enterprise computing to individual

computing, they jumped over the small-group level, where the preponderance of work takes

place (Majchrzak, Malhotra, Stamps and Lipnack, 2004).”

This proposed research will help human resources and business managers make better

decisions about whom to assign to a virtual team, and will provide specific areas of emphasis for

training and development in technical, interpersonal and communication skills. As businesses

move to an increasingly virtual and technology-based structure, these skills and selection criteria

will be essential, not only as a way to compete in the global market, but also as a means to

preserve talent, intellectual capital and competitive advantage in the knowledge economy.

As a practice area, human resources practitioners have an opportunity to take a leadership

role in this area, and the relevance of HR in the future may depend upon how aptly the function

can adapt and apply itself to the dynamic virtual team environment. We can reasonably assume
 VIRTUAL TEAMS
23

that technology will not slow down to wait for HR to catch up, so this becomes a challenge akin

to mounting a horse that is in full gallop, reining it in and harnessing its capability without being

trampled or thrown clear. Such are the challenges of the twenty-first century knowledge

economy, and HR professionals will have to be up to the task. For many, this work structure is

already the norm, and for others this change is lurking just around the corner.
 VIRTUAL TEAMS
24

References

Ante, S. (2009). The corporate shape shifters. Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Retrieved from
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_25/b4136069184321.htm.

Badrinarayanan, V. and Arnett, D. (2008). Effective virtual new product development teams: an
integrated framework. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23(4): 242-48.

Benson-Armer, R., and Hsieh, T. (1997). Teamwork across time and space. McKinsey Quarterly,
(4): 18-27.

Beyerlein, M. (2008). Force field analysis for virtual teams. In Nemiro, J., Beyerlein, M.,
Bradley, L. & Beyerlein, S. (Eds.), The handbook of high performance virtual teams: a
toolkit for collaborating across boundaries. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bing, J. (2004). Metrics for assessing human process on work teams. International Association
for Human Resource Information Management Journal, 8(6): 26-31.

Bughin, J., Chui, M. and Johnson, B. (2008) The next step in open innovation. McKinsey
Quarterly, (4): 112-22.

Cascio, W. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. The Academy of Management Executive,

14(3): 81-90.

Coyle, J. and Schnarr, N. (1995). The soft-side challenges of the “virtual corporation.” Human
Resources Planning, 18(1): 41-42.

Davidow, W. and Malone, M. (1992) The virtual corporation. New York, NY: HarperCollins
Business.

Gibson, C. and Cohen, S. (2003). Virtual teams that work: creating conditions for virtual team
effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Griffith, T, Sawyer, J. and Neale, M. (2003). Virtualness and knowledge in teams: managing the
love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quarterly,
27(2): 265-87.

Harwood, G. (2008). Assessing virtual collaboration effectiveness through DCOM. In Nemiro,

J., Beyerlein, M., Bradley, L. & Beyerlein, S. (Eds.), The handbook of high performance
virtual teams: a toolkit for collaborating across boundaries. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
 VIRTUAL TEAMS
25

Helms, M. and Raiszadeh, F. (2002). Virtual offices: understanding and managing what you
cannot see. Work Study, 51(5): 240-47.

Henttonen, K. and Blomqvist, K. (2005). Managing distance in a global virtual team: the
evolution of trust through technology-mediated relational communication. Strategic
Change, 14(2): 107-19.

Hertel, G., Geister, S. and Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: a review of current
empirical research. Human Resources Management Review, 15(1): 69-95.

Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Voss, K. (2006). Competencies for virtual teamwork: Development
and validation of a web-based selection tool for members of distributed teams. European
Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 15(4): 477-504.

Hinrichs, G. (2008). Connect: Team-building ground rules tools. In Nemiro, J., Beyerlein, M.,
Bradley, L. & Beyerlein, S. (Eds.), The handbook of high performance virtual teams: a
toolkit for collaborating across boundaries. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hoefling, T. (2008). Sample team development process checklist. In Nemiro, J., Beyerlein, M.,
Bradley, L. & Beyerlein, S. (Eds.), The handbook of high performance virtual teams: a
toolkit for collaborating across boundaries. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Horwitz, F., Bravington, D. and Silvis, U. (2006). The promise of virtual teams: identifying key
factors in effectiveness and failure. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(6): 472-
494.

Järvenpää, S. and Leidner, D. (1998) Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4). Retrieved from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue4/jarvenpaa.html.

Kalleberg, A., Knoke, D. and Marsden, P. (1995). Interorganizational networks and the changing
employment contract. Retrieved from www.soc.umn.edu/~knoke/pages/nos96.htm.

Kerber, K. and Buono, A. (2004). Leadership challenges in global virtual teams: lessons from the
field. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 69(4): 4-10.

Kirkman, B., Rosen, B., Gibson, C., Tesluk, P. and McPherson, S. (1995). Five challenges to
virtual team success: lessons from Sabre, Inc. Academy of Management Executive, 16(3):
67-79.

Kreitner, R., Kinicki, A. and Cole, N. (2007). Fundamentals of organizational behavior: key
concepts, skills & best practices. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
 VIRTUAL TEAMS
26

Lee-Kelley, L. (2002). Situational leadership: managing the virtual project team. Journal of
Management Development, 21(5/6): 461-476.

Lurey, J. and Raisinghani, M. (2001). An empirical study of best practices in virtual teams.
Information & Management, 38(8): 523-544.

Malone, M. (2009). The future arrived yesterday: the rise of the protean corporation and what it
means for you. New York, NY: Crown Business/Random House.

Management Assistance Program (MAP) for Nonprofits. (2009) Human resources and virtual
teams. Retrieved from http://managementhelp.org/grp_skll/virtual/hr_team.pdf.

Majchrzak, A., Malhotra, A., Stamps, J. and Lipnack, J. (2004). Can absence make a team grow
stronger? Harvard Business Review, 82(5): 1-9.

Meister, J. and Willyerd, K. (2010). The 2020 workplace: how innovative companies attract,
develop, and keep tomorrow’s employees today. New York, NY: HarperCollins Business.

Newman, L. (2005). Building effective virtual teams: using selection interviews and peer
assessment. 18th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference.

Nydegger, R. and Nydegger, L. (2010). Challenges in managing virtual teams. Journal of

Business & Economic Research, 8(3): 69-82.

Oertig, M. and Buergi, T. (2006). The challenges of managing cross-cultural virtual project
teams. Team Performance Management, 12(1/2): 23-30.

Seiling, J. (2008). Connection: membership principles tool. In Nemiro, J., Beyerlein, M.,
Bradley, L. & Beyerlein, S. (Eds.), The handbook of high performance virtual teams: A
toolkit for collaborating across boundaries. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shin, Y. (2004). A person-environment fit model for virtual organizations. Journal of

Management, 30: 725-743.

Shriberg, A. (2009). Effectively leading and managing a virtual team. Business Review,
Cambridge, 12(2): 1-2.

Siebdrat, F., Hoegl, M. and Ernst, H. (2009). How to manage virtual teams. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 50(4): 63-68.

Stavros, J., (2008). Sensemaking to create high-performing virtual teams in an online

environment. In Nemiro, J., Beyerlein, M., Bradley, L. & Beyerlein, S. (Eds.), The
 VIRTUAL TEAMS
27

handbook of high performance virtual teams: A toolkit for collaborating across

boundaries. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Steege, T. (2003). How mature are your virtual team work processes? [Virtual team operations
survey] Retrieved from http://www.transformstrat.com.

Stohr, V. and Peterson, S. (2003). Virtual teams. Retrieved from

http://www.managementhelp.org/grp_skll/virtual/virtual.htm.

Tabari, M. and Kaboli, A. (2004). Managing virtual teams. Proceedings of the Fifth Asia Pacific
Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Conference. Retrieved from
http://www.apiems.net/archive/apiems2004/pdf/apiems2004_10.6.pdf.

Terrie, D. (1987). Local-area networks: goal shifts to teamwork. Computerworld, 21(23): 1-13.

Thomas, D., and Bostrom, R. (2010). Vital signs for virtual teams: an empirically developed
trigger model for technology adaptation interventions. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 115-142.

Vakola, M. and Wilson, I. (2004). The challenge of virtual organization: critical success factors
in dealing with constant change. Team Performance Management, 10(5/6): 112-120.

Vosburgh, R. (2007). The evolution of HR: developing HR as an internal consulting

organization. Human Resource Planning, 30(3): 11-23.

Willett, C. (2000). Organizations out of whack: aligning the precursors to virtual teams.
[Organizational Precursors Assessment tool] Retrieved from
http://gilgordon.com/downloads/willett.html.