SETTING THE STAGE

One useful way for evaluating virtual teams is to examine the quantity and frequency of communication among the members. Literature suggests that two dimensions in the communication are important: the social dimension and the task dimension. Social dimension is used to describe communication that focuses on building social relationship within the virtual team. Aspects of social dimension include shared understanding, mutual trust and social bonding among team members. Task dimension refers to communication that focuses on specific tasks that affect project completion. Aspects of task dimension include a common project goal, domain related knowledge and skills, task coordination, and modes of interactions within the team.

Lau et al. (2000) describe four archetypes of virtual teams based on the communication patterns and communication content. The level of social and task dimensions evident in the team's interactions describe each archetype (Figure 1). Common actions are defined for each archetype and can be used to determine which archetype a virtual team is placed in. All virtual team communications exhibit various levels of social communication and/or task communication.

click to expand
Figure 1: Virtual Team Archetypes

Teams described in this manuscript can be evaluated using information about the various methods of communication presented in Figure 1. Common behaviors of virtual teams are presented in Table 2. The WebCT tools used to enable the virtual team environments were used to varying degrees by each of the project teams. The extent to which each team used the tools and the way in which team members utilized the tools seemed to trigger social or task orientations in the groups. The following sections illustrate team interactions and show how the teams went about their work along the orientations presented in Figure 1.

Table 2a: Behaviors of Virtual Teams According to Archetype (Based on Lau et al., 2000)
  

High

Low

Time Space

High

IDEAL TEAMS
Teams members understand each other's norms, values and experiences irrespective of location. Team members trust and rely on each other completely. They share humor, gestures and personal stories together. They often have common domain knowledge and skills leading to easy interactions with each other through different technologies. Ideal teams are well coordinated in their project tasks, deliverables and timelines. Teams members are sensitive to each other's time and space differences for reasons of project coordination and personal respect. Teams progress rapidly to the mutual communication stage to build social relationship and work cohesively on projects.

PROFESSIONAL TEAMS
These teams have a common overall project goal. Team members possess the necessary domain knowledge and skills required to do the job. They are well coordinated with regard to tasks, in their project tasks, deliverables and timelines Team members engage in substantive interactions in terms of intensity and meaningfulness. These teams fluctuate between bi-directional and mutual communication when working on project tasks and deliverables. Team members spend little time trying to understand each other's norms, values and experiences. They typically make little effort to share humor or personal stories.

Table 2b: Behaviors of Virtual Teams According to Archetype (Continued)
  

Social Dimension

  

High

Low

Time-Space

Low

SOCIAL BEING TEAMS
These teams understand each other's norms, values and experiences. They trust and rely on each other sharing humor and personal stories. Social Beings may not have well-defined common goals and they may not possess the necessary knowledge and skills necessary to complete a project. These teams focus less on coordinating tasks, deliverables and timelines. They interact easily with each other's time and space differences due to respect for others. Progress to the mutual communication stage mostly to build social relationship and cohesion among team members.

APATHETIC TEAMS
Team members don't fully understand each other's norms, values and experiences. They lack trust, share little humor and few personal stories. Often these teams lack a common overall goal. They don't possess the necessary domain knowledge and skills required. Apathetic teams are not well coordinated in their tasks, deliverables, and timelines. They lack substantive interactions in both intensity and content and they have difficulty interacting. Team members are not sensitive to each other's time and space differences. These teams never achieve mutual communication among team members, thus not being able to build social relationship or work effectively on the project.



Annals of Cases on Information Technology
SQL Tips & Techniques (Miscellaneous)
ISBN: B001KZAZTK
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2005
Pages: 367

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net