SUCCESSFUL VIRTUAL TEAMS: COLLABORATION AND INFLUENCE AS DRIVERS OF

TEAM SUCCESS

Carole D. Robinson

A DISSERTATION

in

Work-Based Learning Leadership

Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania

in

W
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Doctor of Education

IE
2015
EV

Supervisor of Dissertation:
PR

_______________________________________
Stanton E.F. Wortham, Judy & Howard Berkowitz Professor of Education

Dean, Graduate School of Education:

______________________________________
Pamela L. Grossman, Dean and Professor

Dissertation Committee:

Stanton E.F. Wortham, Judy & Howard Berkowitz Professor of Education

Peter Cappelli, George W. Taylor Professor of Management

Dana Kaminstein, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Education

Mario Moussa, Lecturer

 UMI Number: 3704101

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

W
IE
UMI 3704101
EV
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
PR

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 W
IE
EV
PR

SUCCESSFUL VIRTUAL TEAMS: COLLABORATION AND INFLUENCE AS

DRIVERS OF TEAM SUCCESS

COPYRIGHT

2015

Carole D. Robinson
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Completing my doctoral degree has been quite an amazing journey – a significant

milestone encouraged and supported by many. First and foremost, I would like to give

thanks to God - through Him all things are possible. I would like to sincerely express my

gratitude and appreciation to my committee chair Dr. Stanton E.F. Wortham for his

guidance and support. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Peter

Cappelli, Dr. Dana Kaminstein and Dr. Mario Moussa for their time and invaluable

insights. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Kaminstein for the amount of time he

dedicated to working closely with me to provide detailed feedback, pushing my thinking

W
and learning throughout the process. To my doctoral program cohort mates - Eric
IE
Harper, Peppe Auricchio and Rob Robertson - thank you for forming such a strong

cohesive cohort team, standing by each other, checking in weekly and making sure that
EV
we each reach our goals. I would like to especially thank all the study participants.

Special thanks to Penn CLO colleague Dr. Rosina Racciopi from WOMEN Unlimited,

and other company liaisons, who provided access to volunteers to participate in the study.
PR

I would also like to thank my family and friends for their motivation, encouragement, and

patience along the way.

iii
 ABSTRACT

SUCCESSFUL VIRTUAL TEAMS: COLLABORATION AND INFLUENCE AS

DRIVERS OF TEAM SUCCESS

Carole D. Robinson

Stanton E.F. Wortham

The goal of this exploratory qualitative dissertation study was to broaden researcher

understanding of virtual teams in organizations and the perceived similarities and

W
differences between the factors that contribute to virtual team and face-to-face team

success. A second goal of this study was to explore member perceptions about the
IE
factors and behaviors that positively or negatively impact virtual team effectiveness.

This study included twenty-four research participants currently working in virtual teams
EV

representing five industries and representing fourteen organizations. Through a series of

qualitative interviews, the study identified three virtual team success factors:
PR

collaboration, communication technology, and communication.

The majority of research participants revealed that many factors that contribute to virtual

team and face-to-face team success are similar, with the primary difference being impact

to the team if the three identified factors (collaboration, communication technology, and

communication) are not present. Factors that contribute to virtual team success that have

less impact in face-to-face teams include collaboration, communication technology, and

communication. Additionally, this study found that virtual team members engage in

sidebar interactions as an adopted behavior to mimic the water cooler effect that occurs in

iv
face-to-face teaming environments. Sidebar is a form of informal communication, one-

on-one dialogue between two virtual team members conducted pre-meeting either to

collaborate on projects or to engage in an influence discussion. Further, this study found

that influence in virtual teams is multi-dimensional and of mixed strength – including a

combination of soft, rational-based and hard influence tactics.

W
IE
EV
PR

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. x

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiv

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1

Virtual Teams .................................................................................................................................. 2

Prevalence of Virtual Teams in Organizations ................................................................................ 4

Collaboration in Virtual Teams ....................................................................................................... 5

W
Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................ 10

IE
Virtual Teams ................................................................................................................................ 11

Teams in Organizations ................................................................................................................. 12

EV
Defining Virtual Teams ................................................................................................................. 13

Virtual Team Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 17

Virtual Team Effectiveness............................................................................................................ 20

PR

Definition of Success ..................................................................................................................... 21

Virtual Team Challenges ............................................................................................................... 23

Virtual Team Success Factors ........................................................................................................ 27

Collaboration in Organizations ...................................................................................................... 31

Collaborative Behaviors................................................................................................................. 32

Collaboration in Virtual Teams: Challenges and Requirements .................................................... 34

Influence ........................................................................................................................................ 39

Influence Behaviors ....................................................................................................................... 40

Influence in Virtual Teams ............................................................................................................ 42

vi
Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................................... 46

Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODS................................................................................ 49

Rationale for Exploratory Qualitative Research ............................................................................ 50

Research Design ............................................................................................................................ 51

Phase One – Original Study Design............................................................................................... 52

Phase Two – Reconceptualized Design ......................................................................................... 53

Stage One - Participant Selection .................................................................................................. 55

Stage Two - Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 59

Stage Three - Thematic Analysis and Data Analytic Strategy....................................................... 62

Code Development......................................................................................................................... 63

W
Study Limitations and Threats to Validity ..................................................................................... 65
IE
Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................................... 68

Chapter 4: RESEARCH FINDINGS ................................................................................ 69

EV
Emerging Themes .......................................................................................................................... 70

Research Question One .................................................................................................................. 72

Finding One: Collaboration ........................................................................................................... 72

PR

Shared Understanding .................................................................................................................... 77

Right Mix of Stakeholders ............................................................................................................. 80

Sidebar ........................................................................................................................................... 83

Finding Two: Communication Technology ................................................................................... 96

Visual Interfaces .......................................................................................................................... 100

Group Chat/Instant Messaging (IM) ............................................................................................ 108

Finding Three: Communication ................................................................................................... 114

Sub-Finding to Research Question One: Perceived Similarities and Differences ....................... 119

Conceptualized Membership ....................................................................................................... 120

vii
Sub-Finding - Research Question One: What Worked Well ....................................................... 122

And Perceived Similarities or Differences................................................................................... 122

Perceived Similarities with Explanation (and What Has Worked Well) ..................................... 123

Perceived Differences with Explanation (and What Has Worked Well) ..................................... 125

Research Question Two ............................................................................................................... 127

Finding Four: Collaborative Behaviors........................................................................................ 127

Communicates ............................................................................................................................. 127

Works Together to Solve Problems ............................................................................................. 129

Shares Openly .............................................................................................................................. 131

Has an Opinion ............................................................................................................................ 133

W
Openness to Consider Other Perspectives ................................................................................... 134

Is Engaged.................................................................................................................................... 136
IE
Updates the Team ........................................................................................................................ 138
EV
Finding Five: Non-Collaborative Behaviors ................................................................................ 140

Lack of Communication .............................................................................................................. 141

Lack of Collaboration .................................................................................................................. 143

PR

Lack of Engagement .................................................................................................................... 145

Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................................ 147

Chapter 5: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ......... 149

Discussion of Findings................................................................................................................. 152

Collaboration ............................................................................................................................... 152

Communication Technology........................................................................................................ 165

Communication............................................................................................................................ 171

Collaborative Behaviors............................................................................................................... 172

Non-collaborative Behaviors ....................................................................................................... 173

viii
Major Findings ............................................................................................................................. 174

Limitations of the Study............................................................................................................... 178

Researcher Bias............................................................................................................................ 180

Research Implications .................................................................................................................. 181

Implications for Future Research ................................................................................................. 182

Practice-based Implications ......................................................................................................... 183

Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 186

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 188

References ....................................................................................................................... 201

W
IE
EV
PR

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Distribution of Research Participants, across Industry – Total 24 .................... 56

Table 2. Distribution of Research Participants, within Company – Total 24 .................. 57

Table 3. Research Participant Career Levels, across sample - Total 24 ......................... 58

Table 4. Research Participant Tenure, across sample - Total 24 .................................... 58

Table 5. Code Framework ................................................................................................ 64

Table 6. Theme Summary .................................................................................................. 71

Table 7. Collaboration as a Success Factor in Virtual Teams, across Industries............ 73

Table 8. Shared Understanding as a sub-theme within Collaboration and Success Factor

W
........................................................................................................................................... 78

in Virtual Teams, across Industries .................................................................................. 78

IE
Table 9. Right Mix of Stakeholders, as a sub-theme of Collaboration and Success Factor
........................................................................................................................................... 81
EV
in Virtual Teams, across Industries .................................................................................. 81

Table 10. Sidebar Collaboration as a sub component of Sidebar and Success Factor in 84

Virtual Teams, across Industries ...................................................................................... 84

PR

Table 11. Sidebar Influence as a sub component of Sidebar and Success Factor in ....... 87

Virtual Teams, across Industries ..................................................................................... 87

Table 12. Sidebar Influence and Participant Use of Two or More Influence Approaches
........................................................................................................................................... 90

Table 13. Communication Technology as a Success Factor in Virtual Teams, across

Industries........................................................................................................................... 98

Table 14. Visual Interfaces as a sub theme of Communication Technology and Success
......................................................................................................................................... 101

Factor in Virtual Teams, across Industries .................................................................... 101

x
Table 15. Group Chat/IM as a sub-theme of Communication Technology, across
Industries......................................................................................................................... 109

Table 16. Communication as a Success Factor in Virtual Teams, across Industries..... 115

Table 17. Examples of Conceptualized Membership and Varied Definitions of Virtual 120

Teams Across Participants ............................................................................................. 120

Table 18. Similarity/Difference and What Has Worked Well ......................................... 123

Table 19. Similarity/Difference and What Has Worked Well, across Industries............ 123

Table 20. What Has Worked Well and Perceived Similarities with Explanation ........... 124

Table 20. continues ......................................................................................................... 125

W
What Has Worked Well and Perceived Similarities with Explanation ........................... 125

Table 21. What Has Worked Well and Perceived Differences with Explanations ......... 125
IE
Table 21. continues ......................................................................................................... 126

What Has Worked Well and Perceived Differences with Explanations ......................... 126
EV
Table 22. Communicates as a Collaborative Behavior in Virtual Teams, across .......... 128

Industries......................................................................................................................... 128

Table 23. Research Participant Examples of Communicates as a Collaborative Behavior

PR

in Virtual Teams.............................................................................................................. 129

Table 24. Works Together to Solve a Problem as a Collaborative Behavior in Virtual

Teams, across Industries ................................................................................................. 130

Table 25. Research Participant Examples of Works Together to Solve Problems as a

Collaborative Behavior in Virtual Teams ....................................................................... 131

Table 26. Shares Openly as a Collaborative Behavior in Virtual Teams, across Industries
......................................................................................................................................... 132

Table 27. Research Participant Examples of Shares Openly as a Collaborative Behavior

in Virtual Teams.............................................................................................................. 132

Table 27. continues ......................................................................................................... 133

xi
Research Participant Examples of Shares Openly as a Collaborative Behavior in ....... 133

Virtual Teams .................................................................................................................. 133

Table 28. Has an Opinion as a Collaborative Behavior in Virtual Teams, across

Industries......................................................................................................................... 133

Table 29. Research Participant Examples of Has an Opinion as a Collaborative ........ 134

Behavior in Virtual Teams .............................................................................................. 134

Table 30. Openness to Consider Other Perspectives as a Collaborative Behavior in ... 135

Virtual Teams, across Industries .................................................................................... 135

Table 31. Research Participant Examples of Openness to Consider Other Perspectives

......................................................................................................................................... 135

W
as a Collaborative Behavior in Virtual Teams ............................................................... 135

Table 31. continues ......................................................................................................... 136

IE
Research Participant Examples of Openness to Consider Other Perspectives .............. 136

Table 32. Is Engaged as a Collaborative Behavior in Virtual Teams, across Industries137

EV

Table 33. Research Participant Examples of Is Engaged as a Collaborative Behavior in

Virtual Teams .................................................................................................................. 137

Table 33. continues ......................................................................................................... 138

PR

Research Participant Examples of Is Engaged as a Collaborative Behavior in Virtual

Teams .............................................................................................................................. 138

Table 34. Updates the Team as a Collaborative Behavior in Virtual Teams, across
Industries......................................................................................................................... 138

Table 35. Research Participant Examples of Updates the Team as a Collaborative

Behavior in Virtual Teams .............................................................................................. 139

Table 36. Lack of Communication as a Non-collaborative Behavior in Virtual Teams,

across Industries ............................................................................................................. 141

Table 37. Research Participant Examples of Lack of Communication as a Non-

collaborative Behavior in Virtual Teams........................................................................ 142

xii
Table 37. continues ......................................................................................................... 143

Research Participant Examples of Lack of Communication as a Non-collaborative

Behavior in Virtual Teams .............................................................................................. 143

Table 38. Lack of Collaboration as a Non-collaborative Behavior in Virtual Teams,

across Industries ............................................................................................................. 143

Table 39. Research Participant Examples of Lack of Collaboration as a Non-

collaborative Behavior in Virtual Teams........................................................................ 145

Table 40. Lack of Engagement as a Non-collaborative Behavior in Virtual Teams, across

Industries......................................................................................................................... 146

Table 41. Research Participant Examples of Lack of Engagement as a Non-collaborative

Behavior in Virtual Teams .............................................................................................. 147

W
Table 42. Summary of Research Findings ...................................................................... 152

Table 43. Collaborative Behavior in Virtual Teams and Brief Description ................... 173
IE
Table 44. Non-collaborative Behavior in Virtual Teams and Brief Description............ 174
EV
PR

xiii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. A Typology of Sidebar Interactions in Virtual Teams .............................. 161

W
IE
EV
PR

xiv
 Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

Globalization, economic shifts, technological innovation, and the need for

organizations to become more responsive to market demands have spurred the virtual

team trend. These environmental factors require that organizations become more

dynamic and adaptive to remain competitive in the market. Organizations with a

competitive advantage successfully leverage both current technology and human

resources to enhance its ability to quickly respond to dynamic competitive environments

and increasing customer demands. As a result, many organizations are using virtual

teams as a cost-effective way to access and distribute knowledge expertise across the

W
organization.
IE
Traditional, co-located, or face-to-face teams are those teams whose members are in

close proximity to each other, typically in the same physical location and who primarily
EV
communicate face-to-face (Furst, Blackburn, & Rosen, 1999). Virtual teams, on the

other hand, operate beyond the barriers and boundaries of geographic space and distance,

spanning various time zones (Bengt, 2005). Through virtual teams, organizations are able
PR

to quickly assemble a diverse pool of talent and service based on specific situations or

company goals, thereby enabling them to actively compete in the global marketplace

(Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008). However, virtual teams also create unique

challenges to the effectiveness of teams in organizations.

Virtual teams differ from traditional teams on a variety of dimensions, including (1)

physical proximity, (2) ability to coordinate tasks, distribute expertise and disseminate

information, and (3) the availability of visual, verbal/non-verbal, contextual, social, status

1
and other paralinguistic cues. The differences between these contexts and the

characteristics of the virtual team setting may make collaboration challenging (Hinds &

Weisband, 2003; Nemiro, Beyerlein, Bradley, & Beyerlein, 2008; Piccoli, Powell, &

Ives, 2004). With more organizations relying on virtual teams to accomplish their goals,

we must understand the factors that contribute to or hinder the success of virtual teams.

Thus, the primary purpose of this dissertation study was to examine virtual team member

perception about the factors that contribute to virtual team success and how those factors

are similar to or different from the factors that contribute to success in teams that meet

face-to-face. A second goal of this study was to examine virtual team member perception

W
about the factors that positively or negatively impact virtual team effectiveness with
IE
specific emphasis on the behaviors that support and do not support collaboration in

virtual teams.
EV
Virtual Teams

Innovation in technology for information, communication, and collaboration has

enabled greater use of virtual teams in organizations (Saunders, Van Slyke, & Vogel,
PR

2004). The formation and growth of virtual teams in organizations indicates major shifts

in how work is accomplished and, more importantly, how members collaborate to

perform and manage the work (Cohen & Gibson, 2003). Suchan and Hayzak (2001)

describe virtual teams as an “ad hoc collection of geographically dispersed individuals”

(p. 175). While a universal definition does not exist, most researchers agree that a virtual

team is a group of functioning team members who interact through communication

technology across multiple boundaries (e.g., temporal, functional, geographic, social,

2
cultural, and organizational) to accomplish various interdependent tasks (Beyerlein,

Freedman, McGee, & Moran, 2003; Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004; Piccoli et al.,

2004). Several types of virtual teams exist in organizations and have permeated many

functions, departments, and industries in various forms (e.g., cross-functional teams,

project teams, account teams, product development teams, global teams, management

teams, networked teams, etc.) (Duarte & Snyder, 2006). Regardless of industry or

function however, the future appears to include the virtual team as an important

organizational form (Arnold, 2008). Each form of virtual teams has one important

common characteristic: the need to collaborate to accomplish tasks (Duarte & Snyder,

W
2006).
IE
Through virtual teams, organizations achieve many key business objectives, such as

reduced operational costs, increased productivity, higher profits, greater access to global
EV
markets, increased speed, and flexibility and adaptability to respond to customers

(Arnold, 2008; Cascio, 2000; Duarte & Snyder, 2006; Sutanto, Tan, Battistini, & Phang,

2011). A chief benefit of virtual teams is that talent and expertise can be sourced quickly
PR

from anywhere in the world based on need rather than location and without the added

costs or time associated with relocation or travel (Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001).

Additionally, as virtual team members span several time zones and geographies, the

added benefit of virtual teams is having resources available nearly twenty-four hours a

day. While viewed as an advantage to the organization, the notion of twenty-hour,

round-the-clock access may be viewed as a disadvantage to the individual members

(impacting work-life balance).

3
 Although virtual teams offer organizations many strategic and competitive benefits,

the dispersion and flexibility offered by operating in this context creates challenges to the

success of these teams. Often cited disadvantages of virtual teams include a lack of team

member interaction (Cascio, 2000), lack of relational development (Burke &

Chidambaram, 1996; McDonough, Kahn, & Barczak, 2001), lower levels of trust

(Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; McDonough et al., 2001), feelings of social isolation

(Cascio, 2000; Robey, Schwaig, & Jin, 2003), cost of virtual workplace setup (Cascio,

2000), cultural and/or time zone differences (Kayworth & Leidner, 2000; Piccoli et al.,

2004), and lack of career progression or visibility (Furst et al., 1999). Whether the

W
advantages of virtual teams in organizations outweigh the disadvantages is debatable.
IE
Prevalence of Virtual Teams in Organizations

Largely underpinning the trend towards virtual teams is the influx of collaborative
EV
work that spans temporal, functional, geographic, social, cultural and organizational

boundaries, making virtual teams a key attribute of a successful organization (Misiolek &

Heckman, 2005; Piccoli et al., 2004). Thus, the use of virtual teams in organizations is
PR

increasing at a phenomenal rate (Anu, 2006; Arnold 2008). Martins, Gilson, and

Maynard (2004) state that virtual team interactions are so ubiquitous that it is unlikely

that teams in organizations will interact without the use of some form of communication

technology. According to Furst, Reeves, Rosen, and Blackburn (2004), more than 13

million employees in the United States participate in one or more virtual project teams.

By 2015, seventy-five percent of employees working in organizations will work

collaboratively through virtual teams according to the Gartner Group (2011). By 2034,

4
Bass (2005) asserts that virtual teams and virtual leadership (also referred to as e-

leadership) “will be the rule rather than the exception” (p. 383). Unfortunately however,

researchers have also predicted that more than half of virtual teams will be unsuccessful

in meeting their organization’s objectives because of challenges with managing

collaboration within this context (Gartner Group, 2000). Previous studies suggest that

with effective leadership and the appropriate infrastructure within organizations to sustain

collaborative behavior, virtual teams have the potential to collaborate as effectively as

traditional face-to-face teams (Gartner Group, 2000; Webster & Wong, 2008). Therefore,

the Gartner Group has cautioned organizations to not ignore the impact that distributed

W
collaboration has on virtual teams (Gartner Group, 2011). Given the predicted growth of
IE
virtual teams and the emphasis on distributed collaboration in organizations, we need to

better understand the factors that affect the team’s ability to be successful. Further, the
EV
impact of collaboration on virtual team success emphasizes its importance and the need

for organizations to understand how virtual teams use collaboration to accomplish

interdependent tasks. The aim of this dissertation study was to broaden researcher
PR

understanding in this area.

Collaboration in Virtual Teams

Effective collaboration is vital for teams in organizations. Collaboration in

organizations leads to positive team outcomes, project success, and improved

productivity (Alsharo, 2013; Qureshi, Liu, & Vogel, 2006). Collaboration in virtual

teams is a powerful tool for coordinating tasks, mediating relationships, managing

conflict, and accomplishing team goals (Hinds & Weisband, 2003; Nemiro et al., 2008).

5
However, for collaboration to successfully occur within virtual teams, team members

must share knowledge, have a shared understanding of team goals and purpose, and

shared team success (Hinds & Weisband, 2003; Nemiro et al., 2008; Peters & Manz,

2007). Knowledge sharing is the act of sharing information that allows for diverse, new

perspectives and solutions. Shared understanding is a collective way of organizing and

communicating relevant knowledge that impacts a team's ability to collaborate,

coordinate work, and perform effectively (Hinds & Weisband, 2003, p.21). Thus, from

prior research we know that collaboration within virtual teams facilitates teamwork and

improves performance. Absent from the literature, however, is an examination of how

W
collaboration is exercised within virtual teams, i.e., what collaborative behaviors emerge,
IE
are expressed and are sustained by the members that contribute to team success.

Organizations today are comprised of teams – whether traditional or virtual – that

EV
collaborate in order to accomplish a common goal (Alavi & Tiwana, 2002; Alsharo,

2013). Teams whether traditional face-to-face or virtual require collaboration for the

same reasons as virtual teams – to build consensus on decisions, encourage cooperation,

PR

coordinate tasks, and accomplish goals. Thus, traditional face-to-face teams and virtual

teams share similar reasons for why they collaborate; however, they differ significantly in

how they collaborate (Lipnack, 2000). Peters and Manz (2007) suggest that how virtual

teams collaborate is through the use of mutual influence between team members that

supports open communication, conflict resolution, innovation, and experimentation.

While this broadened definition of collaboration has not been widely examined, it is

useful for this study because it acknowledges the use of mutual influence as the

6
interactive behavior that facilitates collaboration between virtual team members and

suggests a relationship between the two constructs of collaboration and influence.

Influence has been studied considerably for centuries (e.g., Hobbes, 1651;

Machiavelli, 1532; Aristotle, 1831; Nietzsche, 1883-1888; Weber, 1948). Studies

examining influence in organizational settings is a relatively new field of investigation

that has seen increasing emergence over the last two decades (Elron & Vigoda-Gadot,

2006). Because influence has become increasingly important in organizations, numerous

researchers have sought to better understand how individuals and teams exercise

influence over others to achieve performance and commitment to group outcomes

W
(Gattiker & Carter, 2010). Thus, interest in understanding how influence operates in

organizations today has heightened.

IE
Influence is a process in which an individual modifies the thoughts, beliefs, feelings,
EV
values and behaviors of others (Barry & Shapiro, 1992; Cartwright & Zander, 1959;

Lewin, 1941). Researchers examining influence in organizations have found that it is a

useful process, a behavior which facilitates collaboration, motivation and engagement of

PR

individuals and teams (Hinds & Weisband, 2003; Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song,

2001; Nemiro et al., 2008; Peters & Manz, 2007). Although previous studies have

examined various aspects of influence in organizations (e.g., Drory & Romm, 1988;

Vigoda, 2002), few empirical studies have explored how influence manifests

organizationally within virtual teams. Researchers examining influence in virtual teams

have found that it facilitates joint decision making, innovation, commitment, cooperation

7
and creative resource allocation (e.g., Boughton, 2011; Elron & Vigoda-Gadot, 2006;

Falbe & Yukl, 1992). Therefore, influence is an important characteristic of virtual teams.

Summary

Prior research on effectiveness in virtual teams highlights the need to understand the

factors that impact team success in organizations. Early researchers examining

collaboration in organizations have found that successful collaboration is positively

associated with organizational change and innovation (Aram & Morgan, 1976). More

recently, researchers examining global virtual teams have found that successful

collaboration is positively associated with team success (e.g., Alsharo, 2013; Montoya-

W
Weiss et al., 2001; Nemiro et al., 2008; Peters & Manz, 2007). In addition, prior research
IE
on collaboration within virtual teams provides an understanding of its requirements,

antecedents, and challenges. Specifically, researchers examining virtual teams have

EV
suggested that collaboration in virtual teams manifests through mutual influence, thereby

suggesting a relationship between collaboration and influence as a tool for accomplishing

team goals. However, researchers have not yet studied how collaboration is manifested
PR

and sustained by virtual teams.

This present study investigated the experience and perception of several virtual team

members from various organizations and industries about virtual team success factors and

the perception of similarity or difference between the factors that contribute to virtual

team success and face-to-face team success. This study considered virtual team member

perception about the factors that support collaboration in virtual teams. The study

included male and female virtual team members from fourteen global organizations

8
across five industries, including technology, healthcare, consumer products, professional

services, and financial services. This study was conducted by way of qualitative

interviews. The length of each interview was between 60 and 90 minutes, and each

interview was recorded and transcribed. The goals of this dissertation study were two-

fold. The first goal of this dissertation study was to broaden researcher understanding of

virtual teams in organizations and the perceived similarity or difference between the

factors that contribute to success in virtual teams and the factors that contribute to success

in face-to-face teams. The second goal of this dissertation study sought to better

understand the behaviors that support or do not support collaboration in virtual teams.

W
Based on these goals, the dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter 2
IE
presents a synthesis of literature – concepts and theories – particularly relevant to the

research of virtual team effectiveness and collaboration to address the two research
EV
questions:

(1) Based on virtual team member perception, what makes a virtual team successful

that is distinct from what makes a face-to-face team successful?

PR

(2) Based on virtual team member perception, what behaviors affect team

effectiveness both positively and negatively?

Chapter 3 reviews the methodological choices and structured approach to the research

design for the study. Chapter 4 presents the study’s major findings. Chapter 5 presents a

discussion related to the research findings and implications for future research.