Gayle Brocks-Becoat

Pepperdine University

Action Research

Graduate School of
Education and
Psychology

Summer 2017
The Impact of Technology on the Engagement
and Collaboration of Virtual Teams
 Acknowledgements
A special thank you to my husband Warren Becoat for his support and
encouragement through-out "the process"; and to Gia Henry, Boeing
Chief of Staff, for assistance with collection and compilation
of research data.

2
Table of Content

Introduction 4

Chapter 1 - Literature Review 5

Chapter 2 The problem to Solve 19

Chapter 3 - Action Research 25

Chapter 4 Compound Action Research Results 36

Conclusion 43

References 46

Introduction

3
 The industrial age began with workers laboring long hours in local

factories applying tradesman skills to produce products needed to support the

growth of our country. With the advent of the computer age and the internet, the

world has become a much smaller space. Communication, collaboration, and

innovation are happening with individuals around the world in just a moment.

The opportunity to bring together the best minds regardless of location has

exponentially multiplied the speed and quality of innovation impacting lives

across the globe. The challenge for businesses is to effectively harness the

productivity of individuals working in this new environment. Individuals

collaborating will likely have never met their collaborators in person. The work

environment will not allow them to look over one another's shoulder at a diagram,

or experiment in a laboratory. They will have many more opinions to consider,

and communication styles to incorporate. This is the age of virtual teams and the

challenge of modern day businesses.

Chapter 1.0 - Literature Review

4
 The purpose of this literature review is to examine studies on the impact

that technology has had on global virtual teams. The research question posed is

How can technology be used to increase global team engagement and

collaboration?

Key themes found in research:

Global team effectiveness, Trust, Appropriateness of tools, Leadership,

Performance, and Technology Training and Support.

Abstract

Much has been written about the effectiveness of global virtual teams.

Research has shown that the effectiveness of global virtual teams is largely

influenced by how freely and actively the team members interact with one

another, which can be characterized by the level of engagement of the team.

Research also shows that the willingness to engage is rooted in the amount of

trust experienced in the group. As trust grows, team members are more willing

to share ideas and collaborate on potential outcomes; which in turn drives

towards higher levels of overall team productivity, innovation, performance, and

business results. The ability of a virtual team to build trust, collaborate, and

produce results has been shown to hinge on their ability to create a virtual space

for interaction. There are various tools and technologies available to facilitate the

creation of the virtual space. The ability of the team and its leaders to select and

manage the right tools will significantly influence the success of the virtual team.

5
1.1 Global Team Effectiveness

What is a virtual team, and what are the factors that influence their

effectiveness? A virtual team is defined as a group of people who work on

interdependent tasks, guided by a common purpose across space, time and

organizational boundaries, (Lipnack and Stamps, 2000). In this environment,

technology supports communication substantially more than face-to-face

meetings," (Maznevski and Chaudoba, 2000; Arauo & Chidambaram, 2008).

Timmer and Scott (2006) reported that the advancement in technology led

researchers to predict that by the year 2020, one-third of the adult workforce

would conduct team business in some form of virtual environment. This

ability to collaborate and engage talent from all over the world to solve

business problems has accelerated organizational performance and

productivity, (Mattison 2011; Olson, Appunn, McAllister, Walters, & Grinnell

2014). With more and more virtual teams being formed, businesses are

looking for ways to maximize the effectiveness of those employee groups.

Leaders must consider when pulling together a virtual, that the

effectiveness of the team will, in part depend upon of the types of tasks that

they are assigned. McGrath et al. 1993, identified the task as an important

consideration because it establishes a foundation for shared goals and a

common purpose. With shared goals, team members are motivated to work

effectively across the challenges that are presented to achieve business

6
results. Several researchers have concluded that global virtual teams are

becoming the most prominent team environment as technology enables

worldwide collaboration that has never before been possible. (Thomas 2010,

Mattison 2011). The challenge that the businesses face is how to maximize

virtual team performance.

While virtual teams have powerful potential to accelerate business

performance and innovation, the challenges they face are unique and can be

significant. Perhaps the greatest problem facing global virtual teams is in

understanding and developing productive relationships between team

members. Developing cohesion among the team is a challenge. Thus, a

growing body of research addresses the issue of improving collaboration

between members of a global virtual team, (Paul, Seetharaman, Samarah,

Mykytyn 2004; Pinjani, and Prashant Palvia 2013). Some notable challenges

include time zone differences, cultural differences, language barriers and

technology adoption, (Robert Jr, Dennis, and Hung 2009; Pinjani, and

Prashant Palvia 2013, Jones 2007, Dorazio & Hickok 2008). The two most

significant challenges, however, seem to be related to the ability to build

trusting relationships, (Pinjani, and Palvia 2013), and technology adoption

(Thomas 2010, Pinjani, and Palvia 2013, Jones 2007). According to Praveen

Pinjani, and Prashant Palvia (2013), Technology has, therefore, become

critical for global virtual teams in carrying out their basic team functions: Commented [G1]: Deleted:absolutely

7
 communication, decision making, learning collaborating, and managing

knowledge."

1.2 Trust

Many researchers have identified trust as a fundamental aspect of

effective collaboration, (Allen & Taylor, 2005; Claiborne & Lawson, 2005,

Genfen, 2002; Hafeez & Abdelmeguid, 2003; Lizzio & Wilson, 2005, Newelll &

Swan, 2000; Thomas 2010). Virtual teams are especially challenged with

building trust because of the inability to build relationships naturally through

ongoing interactions and exposure. The ability to build trusting relationships is

critical to the success of the team, (Jones 2007; Thomas 2010; Mattison

2011; Arauo & Chidambaram 2008); and will impact the teams performance.

According to Mayer et al., "the level of trust is compared to the level of

perceived risk in a situation. If the level of trust surpasses the threshold of

perceived risk, then the trustor will engage in the RTR (risk-taking in

relationships). If the level of perceived risk is greater that the level of trust,

then the trustor will not engage in the RTR. (Robert, Dennis & Hung 2009).

As trust is built, team members will engage more freely by sharing

knowledge and best practices with one another, (Robert, Dennis & Hung

2009; Breunig 2016; Pinjani & Prashant 2013). According to Thomas (2010),

Trust has been demonstrated to be an important factor in increasing the

potential benefits of team collaboration and cohesion. A situation in which

8
virtual team members trust each other enables a culture supporting creativity

and knowledge sharing. This creativity and sharing of knowledge enable

greater innovation as a result of the ability to gather diverse thoughts and

perspectives. Virtual teams may be even more effective than co-located

teams for this reason.

The challenge for virtual teams is building this type of trust, collaboration,

and engagement in an environment where face-to-face interactions are rare.

As such, collaborative technologies are the primary means of interaction.

Frank Jones (2007) determined that collaborative technologies fuel their

ability to build relationships and trust with their team members which in turn

enhances their informal learning and collaboration." Valerie Brown-Thomas,

(2010) sites Majchrzak, Rice Malhotra, King, & Ba, in 2000 to support this

idea further, by confirming that the effective use of communication

technologies positively impacts both team trust and team productivity.

Interestingly, Valerie Brown-Thomas (2010) also found that face-to-face

interactions are not essential for virtual teams, and virtual organizations to

build and maintain trust and performance. A more important element is

acquiring and maintaining the infrastructure to explicitly promote participation

in virtual activities. As employees engage in virtual activities and collaborate

more freely, the quality of their work increases. Per Thomas and Bostrom

(2008), "the idea that trust improvements result in improved project outcomes

9
 is well established in research literature," (Hosmer, 1995; Mattison 2011;

Arauo & Chidambaram 2008).

1.3 Performance

In Mattisons 2011 research, she states that understanding the influences

that lead to productive virtual communication is crucial to an organizations

success and may contribute valuable information regarding how organizations

can continue to expand in a global environment. One of the primary

conclusions of this literature research is that trust and technology are the two

most significant factors that influence a virtual teams productivity and

performance, (Thomas & Bostrom 2008; Thomas 2010; Mattison 2011).

While virtual teams may have an advantage in that they may represent more

diverse ideas and perspective, co-located teams have an advantage in being

able to build trust quickly, based on their interactions, shared customs, and

culture. As stated by Mattison in her 2011 research, the lack of the ability to

meet face-to-face on a regular basis is believed to hinder virtual team

members ability to engage in dialog and debate that is needed for successful

decision making which hinders the teams overall performance.

Arauo & Chidambaram (2008) noted that the development of trust and

the achievement of group outcomes will vary based on the combination of

technologies and task types and higher levels of trust will eventually lead to

better performance.

10
 The virtual communication technology tools chosen can either make or

break the performance of a virtual team. Thomas (2010) highlighted several

researchers that have noted how communication technologies could play a

critical role in promoting trust, collaborating, and increasing virtual team

effectiveness, (Henttonen & Blomqvist, 2005; Jarvenppa, Knoll & Leidner,

1998; Olson, Appunn, McAllister, Walters Grinnell (2014); Araujo &

Chidambaram 2008).

1.4 Appropriateness of Tools

As noted earlier, the selection of the appropriate tools will have a

significant impact on the success of a virtual team. It will directly affect the

teams ability and willingness to engage in activities, to share ideas and

debate solutions, and to build trusting relationships that will impact the quality

of their work/performance. (Pinjani &Palvia 2013; Thomas 2010). According

to Kock (2008), if the technology hinders face-to-face contact, a higher

degree of cognitive effort is required of the participants to decipher the

message or the intent of the message. A combination of e-collaboration

technologies may be utilized for effective communication, including virtual

face-to-face interaction (Mattison 2011; Arauo & Chidambaram 2008).

There are several key considerations when selecting the communication

tools in a virtual team environment. As stated in the Brown-Thomas

11
dissertation, for the communication technologies to be effective, they must

be selected based on the task, organizational capabilities, user skills, or other

factors. Technology should not, however, be used solely for the sake of

using technology, (Alexander, 2000; Bal & Foster, 2000; Chase, 1999; Dune,

2000, Malhotra et al., 2001; Solomon, 2001; Thomas, 2010). In selecting the

most appropriate communication tool, leaders need to consider the teams

maturity and level of experience, technology maturity, the task, the culture,

time constraints, motivations, and level of trust amongst team members,

(Thomas 2010, Mattison; Jones 2007).

Researchers have found that a combination of technologies provide the

best opportunity for team members to engage each other throughout the

process. No one mode of communication will work for all team interaction,

(Mattison 2011). E-mail is one of the most popular tools for sharing

information. Chats and IMs were found to be effective tools for immediate

collaboration and short and quick exchanges and allowed for emotions

exchange (smiley faces), Video Conferencing (or anything that allowed for

visual engagement) were effective tools for building trust, Webex enabled

real-time collaboration closely simulating the face-to-face interaction.

Several researchers found that the selection of inadequate tools could

have a negative impact on the team and the quality of work. Mattison (2011),

for example, concluded in her research that when the quality of the e-

12
 collaboration tool was deemed inefficient, the tool was described as a

negative influence upon team motivation and was believed to lower the

enablement for the development of synergy and the enrichment of trust in the

virtual environment,(Mattison 2011).

1.5 Support

Selecting the right tools is crucial to the success of the team. A

commitment to the training of the virtual team members on the selected tool

suite is also very important. This training should not only include training on

the systems, and potentially the software but also on team etiquette for

communicating within the tool suite selected, (Thomas & Bostrom (2008);

Pinjani & Palvia 2013, Mattison 2011). Per Mattisons research (2011), the

level of e-tool proficiency and social adaptation of the virtual team members

also influenced the effectiveness of virtual communication. The degree of

familiarity with communication e-tools may increase or decrease the cognitive

level of thought required during the virtual communications. The lack of

proficiency and social adaptation within a virtual team may affect

communication and team productivity, and this may be apparent even if one

member of the team has not adapted socially to the use of e-collaboration

tools. The research also acknowledged that the team would go through an

adjustment period as they learn to communicate through the capabilities of

the tools, as well as adjust to the virtual environment, (Mattison 2011; Olson,

Appunn, McAllister & Walters, Grinnell (2014)). Because the teams

13
 proficiency with the tools will directly influence their outcome, it is important

that there is a continual awareness of any changes in the functionality of the

tools that may impact either positively or negatively, the communications

rhythm that the team establishes. If new technologies or functionality is

added, it will be necessary to make sure the team is sufficiently trained in how

to access the new capabilities. Several researchers reinforced the need for

continual training to support the virtual teams communication processes, and

highlighted that it is managements responsibility to ensure technology

adaptation is successful, (Thomas & Bostrom 2008; Olson, Appunn,

McAllister & Walters, Grinnell (2014).

1.6 Leadership

Finally, the research reviewed that leadership was a significant factor in

driving the success of virtual teams. The three factors of leadership that seemed

to have the strongest influence are the leader's skill, action, and style.

Several researchers emphasized the leaders skill at leading a virtual team.

Mattison (2011) stated that the success of the virtual communication is

associated with the ability of the leader to prompt full engagement of the virtual

team members. The research concluded that unique leadership skills are

required to facilitate the creation of trust and productivity within a virtual team

environment, (Jones 2007; Mattison 2011). The conclusion of the research was

that leaders in the virtual environment would need to be skilled in creating a

trusting, collaborative, technology-based communication environment. Thomas

14
& Bostrom (2008) further postulated that leaders in a virtual environment need to

rely on a more facilitative leadership style than might be expected in a more

traditional team. In their research, Thomas and Bostrom (2008) sited Piccoli and

Ives (2003) research which concluded that the methods of trust creation and

maintenance are expected to be different in virtual settings and less susceptible

to more traditional command and control leadership behaviors. Much has been

said in research about Theory X (Command and Control) and Theory Y

(facilitative) management styles. Thomas and Bostrom (2008) experimented with

these management styles in the virtual environment and concluded that virtual

team leaders can affect improved outcomes by managing adaptation of their

teams' information and communication technologies, as we found in the context

of leaders achieving higher trust and cooperation through technology adaption

management. If they wish to do so, they should employ a Theory Y style of

leadership characterized by more facilitative, supporting actions, rather than

command and control (Theory X).

The conclusion of the research on leaderships impact on the success of

the virtual team was with respect to managers/leaders creating a pathway for the

team by leading technology adaptation. This includes making sure that team

members are trained, and motivated to be engaged in the teams outcomes. It

also includes selecting the right suite ( the mixture of tools), creating a trusting

and collaborative environment, facilitating the communication process, taking

action when trust breaks down team interactions, setting expectations and

15
leading by example, (Thomas & Bostrom (2008); Mattison 2011). As

summarized by Arauo & Chidambaram (2008) From a managerial perspective it

is important to know how we can get virtual teams to develop trust at a faster rate

compared to co-located teams. Managerial intervention based on the approach

may ultimately stimulate virtual teams to collaborate and rapidly engage in

effective interactions, thereby improving performance.

Conclusions

How can technology be used to increase global virtual team engagement and

collaboration? Research suggests that technology can be used to either

increase or decrease engagement and collaboration of global virtual teams. A

very strong theme that emerged during the literature review was that the team

members' ability to build trust would largely determine their willingness to

collaborate and engage with one another in the problem-solving process that

leads to innovation, productivity, and business results. For virtual teams, this is

particularly challenging in that they must do so without a lot of face-to-face

interaction which is how most traditional teams typically build trust. Instead,

virtual teams must engage with the appropriate mix of face-to-face meetings and

the use of technology-enabled collaborative tools. The selection of the

appropriate collaborative technology is an important consideration, as is the type

of tasks that the team will perform. The leader of the virtual team will need to

16
consider the task, the teams technology comfort, and the timeframe afforded the

team. The research also highlighted the fact that the leader should not

underestimate the process of technology adaptation and training. This process

allows the team to learn the functionality of the tools, define operating norms or

etiquette when operating in the virtual technology environment, as well as

become accustomed to the new communication modality. As the team adapts to

the communication technology, they will begin to feel more comfortable

interacting (engaging and collaborating). The leader plays a significant role in

helping to create a trusting team environment by facilitating the appropriate use

of technology and setting expectations for the collaborative and innovative team

dynamic.

Bottom-line conclusion, it is not as simple as technology enabling

engagement & collaboration. Trust is the central theme. Technology adaptation

and leadership help to create an environment of trust amongst team members

which will, in turn, enable engagement and collaboration, ultimately driving

productivity, innovation, and business results.

17
Chapter 2.0 - The Problem to Solve

This action research project is designed to test the hypothesis that

technology can be used to effectively increase virtual team engagement and

collaboration. The literature research provided significant evidence that

technology can play a role in increasing virtual team engagement and

collaboration if used in a way that increases, or sustains the level trust amongst

the team members. To do so, the management of the team must support the

creation of a trusting environment by ensuring that the appropriate technology is

chosen and that members of the team are comfortable with the technology being

used.

2.1 About the team

The virtual team that was the subject of this action research project was

the Enterprise Learning Strategy (ELS) team, of the Learning Training and

Development organization of my company.

18
 The ELS organization manages large-scale training solutions enterprise-

wide and globally for a large aerospace company. ELS provides performance

and learning consultation, design, development, and delivery for the following

curriculum areas: Employee Development, Career Development, Human

Resources Functional Development, Project Management, Legal Regulatory &

Compliance Training, World Class Productivity and Quality. We also provide

project management for the all of the training portfolios in our organization. We

accomplish this through a balance of strategic partnerships and our high-quality

internal talent. We also provide the strategy and project management of the

world-class tuition reimbursement program. ELS team members are located in

Washington, California, Missouri, Philadelphia, Arizona, and Chicago. We

partner closely with our teammates in India, Saudi Arabia, Canada, the UK, and

China to deliver our products and services around the world. The team is highly

educated, consisting of 4 Ph.D. and 20 masters degreed employees. The teams

demographic is roughly 60% baby boomers and "GenXrs; 40% Millennials and

"Gen Yrs." The team consists of a wide variety of skills including instructional

systems designers, performance analyst, instructors, project managers,

curriculum managers, and domain specialists ranging from entry level to senior

managers. While these meetings are virtual, this team does come together once

a year for an annual meeting where all the team members are present for a multi-

day session. During these annual meetings, the team gets a chance to interact

face-to-face, and participate in several team building activities. These face-to-

19
face meetings allow the team to build a high level of trust with one another. The

face-to-face meetings are usually at the beginning of the year so that the trust

momentum carries throughout the remainder of the year. In addition, several of

the team members and managers travel throughout the year, to visit other

members of the team and to work collaboratively on projects.

2.2 ELS Virtual Team Meetings

Over the course of the past year, the ELS team conducted a monthly

meeting of all employees in the organization. The purpose of this meeting is to

align the team with our strategy and values, celebrate successes, and discuss

emergent opportunities. These sessions are intended to be highly collaborative

and engaging. At the end of each session, we provide a survey to obtain

feedback on the quality of the session. Each survey asked three questions and

provided freeform space for additional comments. The three questions were:

Was this team meeting a good use of resources?

Were you engaged in the meeting?

Was the information timely and significant?

Figure 2.2.1 summarizes the results of the meeting survey over the course

of one year. There was little variance in the data from month to month. The

mean score remained at around 3.5 on a scale of 1 to 5 (70% positive). After

each meeting, the leadership would review the results of the survey and make

adjustments based on the feedback received.

20
 Figure 2.2.1

The leadership team often struggled with the survey results because the

comments were all over the board. To gain greater clarity, we grouped the

comments by themes. In analyzing the data by themes, we were able to

determine several areas of opportunity. Figure 2.2.2 shows the results of the

analysis by theme. Themes identified were General Positive comments,

Medium/Technology, Time/Agenda. Value, Participation/Discussion,

Recognitions.

21
 Figure 2.2.2

The survey data indicated that our greatest opportunities to raise the level

of engagement and increase collaboration across the team by focusing on

"Technology" and "Meeting Content." The comments around meeting content

reflected on the fact that we often had too many items to cover in the meeting,

and either ran out of time or rushed to complete items. For the sake of my action

research, I normalized this as a variable but adopting a standardized agenda with

on two major topics, and limited the time on other ancillary topics to a defined

short time allotment. Recognition, for example, was limited to five mins per

meeting. In my action research, I focused on the impact of Technology/Medium.

The comments provided in the past years survey indicated a desire to use

22
technology; however, there exist varying degrees of comfort with technology

within the team.

Chapter 3.0 - Action Research

23
 Action research may be defined as an emergent inquiry process in which

applied behavioral science knowledge is integrated with existing organizational

knowledge and applied to solve real organizational problems. It is

simultaneously concerned with bringing about change in the organization, in

developing self-help competencies in organizational members and adding to

scientific knowledge. Finally, it is an evolving process that is undertaken in a

spirit of collaboration and co-inquiry, (Shani and Pasmore; 1985:439).

The intent of this action research was to experiment with various

technologies to see which technology enabled the greatest amount of

collaboration and engagement in our monthly virtual meetings. In that the

population is consistent from month to month, the level of trust is presumed to be

a constant variable and positively impacted by the face-to-face opportunities that

have occurred at the beginning of the year, (and prior years). To experiment with

various forms of technology available for the virtual sessions, I developed three

cycles of analysis. Each cycle utilized a slightly different technology

configuration. The facilitator of the meeting was always the same person, and

the topics were relatively consistent in nature, so these were also considered to

be constant variables.

3.1 Cycle 1

Technology

24
 The Enterprise Learning Strategy (ELS) all-team meeting in January

served as cycle 1 for the purposes of this research. Cycle 1 leveraged WebEx

Training Center technology to perform the meeting. The technology afforded

some advanced meeting capabilities included:

Small groups were utilizing virtual breakout consisting of team members in

several geographic locations.

Chat session functionality

Large group discussion

Interactive features such as audience polls and annotations

Logistics

Attendees for cycle one were in mixed geographies, all attending from

their individual workstations. There was one exception; one manager invited a

few team members to attend from a conference room. Attendees at desks

allowed for small group virtual breakouts for discussions across geographies to

take advantage of the 'virtual classroom' WebEx Training Center offers. Staff

grouped in one room conversed in their breakout session among themselves.

WebEx Training Center also requires a producer to conduct the meeting

technology as host.

Results

General Observation. The technology used in cycle one appeared to

present the largest challenge for the team based on a wider variance of skill

25
 levels among team and facilitators. We had some challenges with the

meeting producers and facilitators being able to master the meeting logistics

and walk participants through the needed steps to allow them to engage.

This cause some frustration with team members who themselves were new

to the technology. Once up and running, some team members were

comfortable and could participate and engage via the virtual classroom

technology with WebEx Training Center while others struggled throughout

the meeting. Those that struggled were a distraction to the flow of the

meeting for those that had mastered the technology. There were a lot of

starts and stops to try to bring everyone along.

Survey Results. The survey response rate was within normal range

(approximately 25%); See Table 2.2.1, Page 20. While there were many

comments referencing technology in the essay comments portion of the

survey results, the quantitative results for the first three questions were

within normal range (>30% Disagree or Strongly Disagree). The comments

around the technology were that the technology was confusing, frustrating,

and distracting.

Collaboration & Engagement.

There was a fair amount of engagement and collaboration as team

members tried to get one another up to speed on the technology. Because

members were curious about the technology, however, they provided more input

26
on the meeting topics as a way of testing out the meeting format. Curiosity,

however, waned with frustration; as did the quality of the collaboration and

engagement.

Lessons Learned.

The facilitators and team members require practice with technology in

advance of a large group meeting, or activity to skill-up meeting technology

proficiency. This technology requires a higher level of proficiency with our IT

and software systems and trained/skilled meeting producers. Leveraging virtual

classroom capabilities via WebEx Training Center will require training in

advance of the session for facilitators, team members; as well as significant

preparation and practice for the meeting producers before each session to

ensure the technology is operating as expected.

Conclusions

Small group engagement across geographies is available via breakout

functionality in WebEx Training Center. The technology does afford small

group and large group interactions. It also supports building trust with visual

and audible communications in a relaxed atmosphere.

Technology proficiency, however, is a barrier. Sufficient training of

facilitators, producers, and team members would be required to engage the

team effectively while using the technology.

27
3.2 Cycle 2

Technology

The Enterprise Learning Strategy(ELS) all-team meeting in February served as

cycle 2 for the purposes of this research. Cycle 2 leveraged WebEx Meeting

Center technology to perform the meeting. The technology afforded basic

meeting capabilities including:

Face-to-Face interaction

Large group and small group discussion

Chat session functionality

Interactive audience polls

WebEx room cameras

Individual team member cameras

Logistics

Logistics for cycle two involved facilitation of large and smaller group

interactions that were partially face-to-face and partially virtual. Participants were

grouped in four breakout rooms and attended the meeting with their laptops

together in one of four rooms. A 'virtual classroom' approach was not used, the

four sites were interlinked with each site serving as a 'classroom' for in-person

interaction. A producer was not required. There were meeting facilitators in

28
each room. Each participant was asked to use their camera functionality to

enable team members that were not in their location to see them during our

connected large group discussions, in addition to the room cameras.

Results

General Observation. Cycle two leveraged technology that was more

familiar for meeting participants. There were fewer technology obstacles for

participants. Collaboration and engagement were similar to a face-to-face

session. It was difficult however to navigate the personal cameras that

allowed team members to see facial expressions and make eye contact,

and the room cameras which capture the room dynamics.

Survey Results. The response rate was well beyond the normal range with

60%. This was the largest recorded response rate to an all-team meeting

survey yet. The 'captive audience' and laptops available during the meeting

likely facilitated the above normal response rate. Survey responses were

slightly negative (median scores of 3.1 and 2.89 out of 5; 3.0 being Neutral).

See Table 2.2.1, Page 20. This lower response median score was believed

to be driven more by the changes occurring in the business than the

meeting content or technology insertions. This hypothesis, however, would

need to be validated in a future session.

Collaboration & Engagement

29
 In cycle 2, master facilitators engaged meeting participants with cross-site

meeting facilitation, so each site was well represented in large group

discussions. In-room collaboration for one of the four sites may have been

facilitated by reducing the number of participants in the room and increasing the

number of rooms used. For instance, some attendees could hide multi-tasking

an inattention to the meeting because of the number of attendees in the room.

Smaller groups may have helped pressure multi-taskers to pay attention.

Virtual engagement via chat window was successful because it encouraged

members to contribute comments and ideas more safely during large group

discussions. Others responded, or acknowledged the chat comments which

built trust amongst the team members.

Lessons Learned

There were many lessons learned as documented in project team "after

action review." The most significant takeaway was to make sure that everyone

has an opportunity to experience new technology before the meeting. Some

people needed assistance on their personal computer to engage in the

interactive portions of the meeting. The other major takeaway was to make sure

the teams are evenly distributed across the virtual sites. Some sites had a

much larger number of people which tended to drown out sites with few team

members

30
Conclusions

This meeting format leveraged both a face-to-face and virtual meeting

format. As such, it was anticipated that the engagement and collaboration to be

higher than in a purely virtual session. The technology used effectively

connected the partially virtual team into one setting to discuss the meeting

objectives. Discussions in the face-to-face sessions were interactive and more

engaging. The virtual portion of the meeting, while not significantly impacted by

the technology did require a more structured interface to allow the team to

engage one another. The lower results of this session were impacted by

negative changes in the business environment.

3.3 Cycle 3

Technology

The Enterprise Learning Strategy (ELS) all-team meeting in March served

as cycle 3 for the purposes of this research. Cycle 3 leveraged WebEx Meeting

Center technology to perform the meeting with participants attending in several

conference rooms for face-to-face participation. The technology for cycle 3 was

similar to cycle two however the meeting format was different. Personal cameras

and computers were not used in the meeting (except those participating at their

workstations). The technology afforded basic meeting capabilities including:

WebEx

31
 Chat session functionality

Small group gatherings

Large group discussion

Interactive audience polls and annotation though available were not used.

Logistics

Attendees for cycle 3 attended in small groups. Most of the attendees

were grouped in one of five locations/conference rooms two groups in

Southpark, WA; one group in Everett, WA; one group in Huntington Beach, CA;

and another group in St. Louis, MO. There were a few participants in remote

sites that attended the meeting at their workstation. The sites were interlinked via

WebEx Meeting Center; no producer was required.

Results

General Observation. The WebEx Meeting Center technology used in this

cycle was "familiar" technology for participants. No additional technologies

or extra functionality was used. Participants could focus exclusively on the

meeting content without having to interact with the technology. This

combination of virtual and face-to-face approach seemed to create a

relaxed and focused environment for the meeting. Participants, however,

interacted mostly with the host of the meeting and didn't have much

opportunity to interact with one another except through the chat functionality

which was used by team members to provide insights, ideas, and questions.

32
 Survey Results. Though the survey participation rate was low (only 20%),

the survey results skewed positive (mean score of 3.81 out of 5.0; 3=neutral

and 4=positive) suggesting the meeting more engaging. See Table 2.2.1,

Page 20.

Collaboration & Engagement

Based on the survey results, the energy level was higher for this meeting.

Narrative comments skewed positively with many appreciating the discussion.

There were a lot of questions and input from the team during the meeting which

would suggest a higher level of engagement. However, the structure of the

meeting did not allow for small group collaboration. The interaction was limited

to communication to the larger team. Any single room conversations would

have been distracting and decreased the productivity of the entire meeting for

the other sites. These meeting norms were well understood and followed which

supported the meeting's positive outcome.

Lessons Learned

Using "familiar" technology with face-to-face engagement may increase Commented [G2]: Inserted: "
Commented [G3]: Inserted: "
engagement among the team, however, limits the about of collaboration between

team members. The chat functionality was not used as much as when

participants were in a fully virtual environment. This was anticipated because

participants would naturally express themselves as prompted by others in the

room making eye contact, and making gestures that were observable to others in

33
the room or on the room cameras. The room cameras seemed to allow for more

natural (less intrusive) visuals information than the individual camera which

focuses only on one person for the entire meeting.

Conclusion

This format combination of virtual and face-to-face was effective for

sharing information with a large virtual group, and have a group discussion about

content. It did not, however, allow for the team collaborate on a problem to solve

or generate and mature ideas with that would lead to an innovative solution. At

best, ideas could be shared and would have to work in another venue that used

more collaborative technology

Chapter 4.0 - Action Research Compound Survey

Results

To further validate the survey results received after each of the cycles, I

conducted a compound survey to understand specifically how the technology

employed during each cycle impacted the participants level of engagement and

ability to collaborate with their teammates. The compound survey was

conducted in April. In the compound survey, I reminded the survey participants of

the technology, and logistics for each cycle and asked them to answer five

questions for each cycle. The five questions were:

1. Describe your level of engagement in the meeting.

34
 2. Did the technology affect your ability to engage in the discussion?

3. Did you feel like you could contribute your ideas and collaborate in the

meeting?

4. Were you familiar with the technology used in the meeting?

5. Would you use this technology to engage and collaborate with friends or

trusted peers to work on a project?

I compared each of the three cycles to see which technology package drove

higher or lower scores for engagement and collaboration. Figures 4.0.1 through

4.0.5 below summarize the side by side results of the compound survey.

Action Research Compound Survey Results (1):

Describe your Level of Engagement in the Meeting

Cycle 1 Webex Meeting Ctr Cycle 2 Webex/ Group Meeting Cycle 3 VTC

BOEING PROPRIETARY 16

Figure 4.0.1

35
 Did the technology affect your ability to engage in the discussion?

Cycle 1 Webex Meeting Ctr Cycle 2 Webex/ Group Meeting Cycle 3 VTC

BOEING PROPRIETARY 17

Figure 4.0.2

Action Research Compound Survey Results (2):

Did you feel like you could contribute your ideas and collaborate in the meeting?
Cycle 1 Webex Meeting Ctr Cycle 2 Webex/ Group Meeting Cycle 3 VTC

Figure 4.0.3

36
 Were you familiar with the technology used in the meeting?
Cycle 1 Webex Meeting Ctr Cycle 2 Webex/ Group Meeting Cycle 3 VTC

18

Figure 4.0.4

Action Research Compound Survey Results (3):

Would you use this technology to engage and collaborate with friends or trusted
peers to work on a project?

Cycle 1 Webex Meeting Ctr Cycle 2 Webex/ Group Meeting Cycle 3 VTC

19

Figure 4.0.5

37
4.1 Analysis of Compound Survey Results

Cycles 2 and three both involved blended meeting formats with face-to-

face as well as virtual components. In the question regarding the level of

engagement in the session, cycles 2 and 3 received the highest engagement

scores. This supports the findings of the literature search which suggest that

face-to-face meetings allow greater trust than a virtual meeting, and hence allow

for higher levels of engagement and collaboration. The engagement on Cycle 1,

which incorporated the most complicated technology package, was the lowest of

all three cycles. The comments from this session revealed that the team was not

trained on the technology, and it was therefore frustrating. This greatly hindered

the team ability to collaborate and engage with one another. This phenomenon

was also supported by the literature research. In this case, leadership failed to

ensure that everyone was trained, and create an environment that would be

successful for the team.

It was noted that technology only slightly negatively impacted cycles 1 and

2. In both cycles, we had employees with the personal computers and camera.

In each case, we asked employees to respond to polls, use annotation

functionality, chat, and their personal computers. Comments reviewed that it was

confusing and frustrating to try to engage through personal computing devices

and room devices simultaneously.

38
In all three cycles teammates indicated that they were familiar with the

technology used and that they would use the technology with trusted friends.

This, however, was not supported in the comments received, especially in cycle

one. This might suggest that while individuals felt like they were familiar, the

problems that inhibited engagement in that cycle were not related to their

personal knowledge of technology. Alternatively, it could be the case that those

that responded to the compound survey were not the individuals that struggled

during the January meeting (cycle 1).

4.2 Considerations

The data collected during this action research project measures the level

of engagement and ability for this virtual team to collaborate with one another in

a very complex business environment. During the three months of the study (Jan

2017 through March 2017), multiple changes and challenges in our business

impacted employee morale. The most significant event was the announcement

that we were going to exercise a ten percent involuntary reduction in workforce."

While announced in January, the process of identifying who would lose their job,

and communicating with those employees lasted through February. After

notifying those employees impacted, there was another period of sixty days

(through May) that those employees remained on their job even though they and

their non-impacted peers were aware of their lay-off notices. Further, our Vice

39
President of seven years announced their retirement in January, with the last day

in the office in February. The team was without a senior leader for February and

March. In addition, the team was aware that there was a major restructure being

planned for the entire organization. Many questions were unanswered about

what it meant to the employees. There was a lot of concern expressed about the

uncertainty of their personal futures. Employees openly expressed their fear of

change and their personal insecurities. As a result, the morale of the entire

organization was low, most significantly in February as employees waited to find

out if they, and/or which of their peers would be impacted by the lay-offs.

Consequently, it is believed the data around engagement was skewed due

to the business climate. Further testing of how technology impacts engagement

would need to be conducted to validate the results of this research study.

40
Conclusion

The purpose of this action research project was to experiment with the impact of

technology of virtual teams. The question that was posed was, How can

technology be used to increase global team engagement and collaboration?

The literature research conducted in support of this project revealed several

factors impacting the effectiveness of virtual teams including trust, leadership, the

appropriateness of tools, and technology training. Trust is the central theme.

The literature research concluded that technology adaptation and leadership help

to create an environment of trust amongst team members which will, in turn,

enable engagement and collaboration, ultimately driving productivity, innovation,

and business results.

41
 In this action research project, three technology adaptations (cycles) were

evaluated. Leadership engaged with the team to facilitate the session in an effort

to create an environment of trust in which the team could engage and collaborate

on emergent issues, align with goals, and celebrate team successes. This action

research cycles validated several findings of the literature review. The idea that

trust is a key element in engagement and the team's willingness to collaborate

with one another was substantiated in two of the action research cycles that had

a blended format of face-to-face and virtual elements. The face-to-face

component facilitated the building of trust as team members interacted with one

another in a more naturally even though parts of the team were virtual. The

camaraderie with boosted morale and engagement across the entire team. The

action research also substantiated the fact that the selection of the right

technology for the task is an important leadership decision. This research

concluded that in some cases, less is better. The cycles that used complex and

elaborate technology received the lowest scores on engagement. This was a

leadership failure to ensure that the team was familiar with the technology

(appropriate training) and that it was the most appropriate technology to

accomplish the task. Technology for technology sake can lead to frustration and

disengagement. This was proven in cycle 1 of this research project.

The one additional factor that surfaced in this action research was the

impact of the business environment on engagement and collaboration. This

study was conducted in an environment experiencing a high degree of volatility

and uncertainty which may have skewed the results on the team willingness to

42
engage, and collaborate on business issues. Further study should be

conducted to validate the results of this research project is a more stable

business environment.

Overall, this study supports the idea that technology can be used to

increase collaboration and engagement in virtual teams. It is clear that the ability

to collaborate and engage talent from all over the world to solve business

problems has accelerated innovation and productivity. With the pace of

technology adaptation of businesses around the world, more and more virtual

teams being formed. Leaders are looking for ways to maximize the effectiveness

of those teams. In the Harvard Business Review article entitled "Collective

Genius," the authors state that "The role of a leader is not to set a vision and

motivate other to follow it. It is to create a community that is willing and able to

generate new ideas; (Hill, Brandeau, Truelove, Lineback; 2014). Technology will

play an important role in helping leaders harness the power of virtual teams.

43
References

Allen, K., &Taylor, C. (2005) Bringing engineering research to Market,

How Universities, industry, and government are attempting to solve the
problem. Engineering Management Journal, Vol 17 (3) pp 42-82
Alexander, S. (2000). Virtual teams going global. InforWorld, 22 (46), 55-
56
Arauo, A.L., Chidambaram,L., International Journal, Networking and
Virtual Organizations Vol 5, No 1, 2008 A dynamic perspective of
trust in virtual teams: the role of task, technology and time
Bal, J., & Foster, P. (2000). Managing the virtual team and controlling
effectiveness. International Journal of Production Research, 38, 4019-
4032
Breunig, K.J, (2016), Limitless Learning: Assessing Social Media use for
Global Workplace Learning, the Learning Organization, Vol.23 Iss 4 pp. Commented [G4]: Inserted: L
Chase, N. (1999). Learning to lead a virtual team. Quality, 38 (9), 76 Commented [G5]: Deleted:l
249-270
Claiborne, N., & Lawson, H. (2005). An intervention framework for
collaboration. Families in Society, 86, 93-104
Dune, P. (2000). The links that boost morale. Management Today, 74
Dorazio, P., Hickok, C., Journal of Educational Technology Systems, Vol
36 (2) 157-170, 2007-2008 Modeling the Global Workplace Using
Emerging Technologies.
Hosmer, L.T. (1995). Trust: The connection link between organizational
theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Vol 20(2), pp
379-403
Gefen, D. (2002). Reflections on the dimensions of trust and
trustworthiness amoung online consumers. ACM SIGMIS Database
33(3), pp 38-53

44
 Hafeez, K., & Abdelmeguid, H (2003). Dynamics of human resource and
knowledge management. Journal of the Operational Research Society,
54, pp 153-164
Hill, L.A; Brandeau, G; Truelove, E; Lineback, K (June 2014) Collective
Genius. Harvard Business Review
Jones, F., UPS 2007 "The Informal Workplace Learning Experience of
Virtual Team Members: A Look at the Role of Collaborative Technologies." Commented [G6]: Inserted: .
Kock, N.(2008a) Designing e-collaboration technologies to facilitate Commented [G7]: Inserted: W
compensatory adaptation. Information Systems Management V 20 (1), pp
Commented [G8]: Deleted:w
14-19.
Lipnack, J and Stamps J. (2000) /Virtual Teams: People Working Across
Boundaries with Technology, 2nd ed., New Your, NY: John Wiley & Sons
Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K (2005). Self- managed learning groups in higher
education: Students perceptions of process and outcomes. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, V 75 pp 373-390
Majchrzak, A., Rice, R., Malhotra, A., King, N., & Ba, S. (2000).
Technology adaption: The case of a computer-supported inter-
organizational virtual teams. MIS Quarterly, Vol 24(4), pp 569-600
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A. Carman, R., & Lott, V (2 001). Radical
innovation without collaboration: A case study at Boeing-Rocketdyne. MIS
Quarterly, 25(2), 229-249
Mattison, T., Dissertation Ph.D. of Business Administration, University of
Phoenix 2011"Virtual Teams and e-Collaboration Technology: A Case
Study Investigating the Dynamics of Virtual Team Communication."
Maznevski, M.L. and Chudoba, K.M. (2000) Bridging space over time:
global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness Organization Science,
Vol.11, No. 5, pp. 473-492.
McGrath, J.E., Arrow, H., Gruenfeld, D.H., Hollingshead, A.B and
O'Connor, K.M. (1993) "Groups, tasks, and technology: the effects of
experience and change," Small Group Research, Vol. 24, No.3, pp 406-
420.
Newell, S., & Swan, J. (2000). Trust and inter-organizational networking.
Human Relations, Vol 53, pp 1287 1328
Olson, J.D., Appunn, F.D., McAllister, C.A., Walters, K.K., Grinnell,L. , the
(2014). Team Performance Management Vol 20 Iss 3/4 pp 147-177.
"Webcams and Virtual Teams: an Impact Model
Paul, S., Seetharaman, P., Samarah, I., Mykytyn, P.P., Impact of
heterogeneity and collaborative conflict management style on the
performance of synchronous global virtual teams, Information and
Management 41, 2004, pp. 303-321
Piccoli, G. & Ives, B (2003). Trust and the Unintended Effects of Behavior
Control in Virtual Teams. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 365-395.
Pinjani, P., Palvia, P., ELSEVIER Information & Management "Trust and
Knowledge sharing in diverse global virtual teams."

45
 Robert Jr., L.P, Dennis, A.R, and Hung, Y.C. Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol 26, No 2 pp. 241-279; Fall 2009 Individual
Swift Trust and Knowledge-Based Trust in Face to Face and Virtual Team
Members."
Solomon, C. (2001). Managing virtual teams. Workforce, 80(6), 60-65
Thomas, V.B., Dissertation Ph.D. of Philosophy, Capella University 2010
Virtual Team Effectiveness: An Empirical Examination of the Use of
Communication Technologies on Trust and Virtual Team Performance."
Thomas, D., Bostrom, R., (2008), Information Systems Management, Vol
25, pp 45-56
Timmerman, C.E., & Scott, C.R. (2006). Virtually working: Communicative
and structural predictors of media use and key outcomes in virtual work
teams.
Coghlan, D; Brannick, T (2010). Doing Action Research in Your Own
Organization; 3rd Edition (4)

46