The Role of Project Manager and Team Member

Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs) in Distinguishing

Virtual Project Team Performance Outcomes

By Velvet Weems-Landingham

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy
2004

Dissertation Advisor: Dr. David Kolb

Department of Organizational Behavior

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERITY

May 2004
 UMI Number: 3119604

________________________________________________________
UMI Microform 3119604
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
____________________________________________________________

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
PO Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
 CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

We hereby approve the dissertation of

Velvet Weems-Landingham
______________________________________________________

candidate for the Ph.D. degree *.

David Kolb
(signed)_______________________________________________
(chair of the committee)

David Cooperrider
________________________________________________

Vanessa Druskat
________________________________________________

Julie Rennecker
________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

March 31, 2002

(date) _______________________

*We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any
proprietary material contained therein.
Copyright © by Velvet Weems-Landingham
All rights reserved

iii
 DEDICATION

This is dedicated to my mother, Gladys Weems, father, Robert Weems and sister,
Daphne Weems-Reid. Thanks for being with me each step along the way.

I thank God for each moment we have shared together!

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SIGN-OFF PAGE........................................................................................................ ii
COPYRIGHT ............................................................................................................. iii
DEDICATION............................................................................................................ iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ 1
LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................... 3
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... 4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................... 5
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ 8
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 10
Definition of Key Terms........................................................................................ 14
Empirical Studies on Virtual Project Team Effectiveness .................................... 17
The Present Study .................................................................................................. 19
Significance of the Study....................................................................................... 20
Research Questions................................................................................................ 23
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................... 25
Virtual Project Teams ............................................................................................ 25
Virtual Project Team Definition ........................................................................ 25
Virtual Project Team Typology ......................................................................... 27
Virtual Project Team Performance Outcomes ................................................... 31
Virtual Project Team Consistency ..................................................................... 34
KSA Requirements for Collocated Teamwork...................................................... 46
A Structure Review of Virtual Teamwork Literature............................................ 49
Proposed KSA Requirements for Successful Virtual Teamwork.......................... 63
CHAPTER 3: METHODS......................................................................................... 67
Research Setting .................................................................................................... 68
Organization Background.................................................................................. 68
Sample Group .................................................................................................... 69
Virtual Teams .................................................................................................... 72
Participants ........................................................................................................ 74
Research Design .................................................................................................... 76
Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 78
Semi-Structured Interviews ............................................................................... 78
Code Development Procedures.............................................................................. 80
Coding Scheme.................................................................................................. 82
Proposed Virtual Teamwork KSAs ....................................................................... 90
Project Manager KSAs ...................................................................................... 91
Proposed Team Member KSAs ......................................................................... 98
Data Analysis....................................................................................................... 100
Phase I: Aspects of Performance ..................................................................... 100
Phase II: Team Member KSAs ........................................................................ 101
Phase III: Predictors of Outcome..................................................................... 101
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 102

1
 RQ1a: Virtual Project Manager Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs)
Distinguishing Performance Outcomes ............................................................... 103
RQ1b: Virtual Team Member Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs)
Distinguishing Performance Outcomes ............................................................... 108
RQ2: Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs) as Outcome Predictors .............. 110
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION .................................................................................. 117
Summary of Findings .......................................................................................... 118
Study Findings as They Relate to Proposed Virtual Teamwork KSAs ............... 123
Absence of Positive Team Member Behaviors within Successful Virtual Teams
............................................................................................................................. 125
Project Manager and Team Member KSAs Required for Successful Virtual
Teamwork ............................................................................................................ 126
Collaborative Problem Solving........................................................................ 127
Communications .............................................................................................. 133
Goal Setting & Performance Management...................................................... 139
Planning & Task Coordination ........................................................................ 143
Processes Associated with Successful Virtual Teamwork .................................. 146
Virtual Teamwork Distinguisher ......................................................................... 152
Limitations of the study ....................................................................................... 160
Future Research Directions.................................................................................. 162
APPENDIX.............................................................................................................. 165
Appendix A: Proposed Skills Associated with Effective Virtual Teaming......... 165
Appendix B: Codebook ....................................................................................... 168
Appendix C: Interview Script............................................................................. 174
Appendix D: Aspects of Performance Differentiating Virtual Team Performance
Outcomes ............................................................................................................. 177
Appendix E: Proposed versus Actual Project Manager and Team Member KSAs
Required for Virtual Teamwork .......................................................................... 178
BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................... 180

2
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.2: Five Styles of Trust .................................................................................. 37

Table 2.3: Knowledge, Skills and Abilities Required for Collocated Teamwork ..... 47
Table 3.1: E-Learn Virtual Team Membership ......................................................... 70
Table 3.3: Virtual Team Typology ............................................................................ 73
Table 3.2: North American Participants, Virtual Location, Gender, and Job
Classification. ............................................................................................................ 76
Table 3.4: Proposed Project Manager KSAs ............................................................. 91
Table 3.5: Proposed Team Member KSAs ................................................................ 99
Table 4.1.1: Descriptive Statistics for the Project Manager Sample and Sub-samples
and Mann-Whitney Ua Comparison between Effective and Ineffective Virtual Project
Teams....................................................................................................................... 104
Table 4.1.1: Descriptive Statistics for the Team Member Sample and Sub-samples
and Mann-Whitney Ua Comparison between Effective and Ineffective Virtual Project
Teams....................................................................................................................... 108
Table 4.2: List of Significant Project Manager and Team Member KSAs ............. 112
Table 4.3: Results of Stepwise Discriminate Function Analysis of Significant Project
Manager and Team Member KSAs Comparing Effective and Ineffective Virtual
Project Team Performance ...................................................................................... 113
Table 4.4: Results of Classification of Group Membership from Selected KSAs of
Effective and Ineffective Virtual Project Team Performance ................................. 115
Table 5.4: Discriminating Virtual Teamwork Knowledge, Skills and Abilities ..... 152

3
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Conceptual Frame of Effective Group Performance............................... 31

Figure 2.2: A Model of Group Task Effectiveness.................................................... 41
Figure: 3.1: Codebook Development Process ........................................................... 81
Figure 3.2: Coding Table........................................................................................... 83

4
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you Lord for giving me the strength to preserve. I thank you most of

all for providing a trusted advisor and teacher, Dr. David Kolb, to guide in my

dissertation process.

Dr. David Kolb, my advisor, thank you for the many ways you have

supported me: the words on encouragement during times when I have faltered; the

slightest of comments with the great impact; the time to listen, discuss, and read.

Your kind face and smile which makes me feel at home and helps me understand that

nothing, including dissertation, is insurmountable.

Dr. Vanessa Druskat you are my role model. I love the energy and

enthusiasm which you bring to the process of inquiry. Thanks for always offering an

ear … a suggestion … an example. All those things which have helped me move.

Dr. David Cooperrider you are my optimist. You have been there for me in

times of strife and turmoil always helping me visualize the positive and the

possibility. You have saved my more times than you could know.

Dr. Julie Rennecker you are not only my content expert but a guide and role

model as well. Your spirit is exhilarating and your dedication to research and the

mentoring of your students often unfound.

Dr. Poppy McLeod thank you for being you and always being there for me!

Dr. Richard Boyatzis thank you for your consistent show of leadership,

support and guidance.

Dr. Jaye (Goosby) Smith thank you for being my friend. Thanks for the

countless hours of advice and wisdom beyond your years.

5
 Sable Landingham, my daughter, you are the love of my life, my sunshine

and my joy. I thank you for the laughter and smiles in times of strife. Thank you for

showing me how to love unconditionally.

To my son … soon to arrive, I look forward to your birth and the many days

of joy we will share together.

To my husband, Carlton Landingham: thanks for keeping me on task. It is

because of you that I truly understand just how much I really want this. Thanks for

your patients and support.

I thank God for you everyday, Talonzo & DaVaughn, my life would be

nothing without you! Love your Auntie.

Dad, we have survived many tragedies, you and I. Still we are together. And,

I am eternally grateful for YOU. For the countless times and ways you have

supported. For the guidance and support you freely give to those you love. I couldn’t

ask for a better father!

Dianca Blackwell, at one time my student and now my trusted friend. Thanks

for always thinking of me, always staying in touch, always coming to my aid. Only

you would agree to spend your evenings and weekends coding data for my

dissertation. Undying gratitude for you and all the things you do!

Darryl McCrary. As I finish my dissertation journey … you begin your own.

Thanks for the many hours you have listened intently to my woes. Thanks for the

many times you have encouraged and helped me to move forward.

6
 Sandra Landingham. I couldn’t have imagined a better mother-in-law.

Thanks for the many weekends you have lovingly watched over Sable. We all love

you dearly!

To my cousin, Cheryl Collins: thanks for being my sister and my friend. You

mean the world to me!

Thanks to KPMG and Ph.D. project for helping me see that academe is the

place for me. To all my many colleagues that have supported me in thoughts and

prayers. I look forward to seeing you each year … and each year is truly a

celebration.

Finally, thanks to the many others, friends and colleagues, who have helped

me along this journey.

7
 ABSTRACT

The Role of Project Manager and Team Member Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities in

Distinguishing Virtual Project Team Performance Outcomes

Abstract

by

Velvet Weems-Landingham

Virtual teaming has become one of the most common interventions for

organizations seeking to reduce costs and time to market, pool knowledge, and

leverage skills. Previous research on individual behaviors contributing to virtual

project team effectiveness has focused on contributions made by team leaders. The

present study expands existing knowledge on individual competencies impacting

virtual project team performances by looking at behaviors exhibited by both project

managers and the team members who support them.

Study findings were based upon semi-structured interviews of 23 project

managers within one organization. Interviews yielded a total of 145 narratives

describing salient situations where project managers felt virtual project team

outcomes were either effective (n= 77) or ineffective (n=68). Narrative analysis was

then enlisted to determine project manager and team member KSAs associated with

differences in the achievement of task interdependent objectives.

8
 Three broad behavioral competencies were attributed to differences in virtual

project team performance outcomes. They were discovery and preparation,

leadership and team potency. Discovery and preparation behaviors refer to those

project manager KSAs (pre-work, planning, understanding objectives and

understanding action) associated with exerting sufficient effort and establishing clear

and engaging directions. Leadership behaviors refer to project manager KSAs

(client partnering, managing expectations, delegating, escalating, seeking approval

and guidance, and determining team member resources) deemed central to building

expert teams. And finally, team potency behaviors refer to those project manager and

team member KSAs (confidence, competence, empathy, facilitation, and social

presence) associated with the teams’ overall belief in their ability to perform.

Results suggest increasing virtual project team effectiveness by bolstering

team member responsiveness and facilitation, increasing project managers’

confidence and feelings of competence, finding and commandeering critical team

member resources, and partnering with clients to ensure successful outcomes.

9
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

There has been increasing pressure for organizations to enhance their chances

of survival within today’s turbulent and changing global economy. As a result, many

of these organizations have abandoned traditional ways of working to embrace more

flexible “productive” ones. Virtual teaming has become one of the most common

interventions for organizations seeking to reduce costs and time to market, pool

knowledge, leverage skills, promote conductive work environments, increase self-

motivation and cross-functional communications, and improve product quality.

Increased dependence upon virtual teams has been credited to overall ways to

procure expert knowledge and transfer ‘best practice” information (Huber, 1990). By

implementing virtual teams, many organizations have become better equipped to

capitalize on the distributed pool of talent, experience, and expertise thereby making

the achievement of organization-based objectives “better, faster, cheaper, and

smarter” (Lipnack & Stamp, 1997; Townsend et al., 1998). In particular, virtual

teaming has allowed organizations to quickly develop and enlist the aid of

geographically and organizationally dispersed human resources to resolve problems

in record time.

This open-systems approach to working has been thought by many to be the

wave of the future. The belief being that increased dependence upon virtual teaming

could one day eliminate long commutes to and from designated work locations and

facilitate the efficient, effective conducting of business “anytime … anywhere”.

Since the insurgence of virtual teaming, however, researchers and practitioners have

struggled to harness the many benefits often attributed to virtual project teams.

10
 More than a few organizations have floundered in hopes of stumbling upon

those factors which give rise to virtual project team effectiveness. Many have

experimented with the concept, allowing a few select employees to work from their

home offices, while academics and consultants conjecture about the potential

organizational and social risks and rewards of implementing these work

arrangements (Kraut, 1989; Olson & Primps, 1984; Shamir & Salomon, 1985).

Despite the increasing popularity and interest in virtual teams, little empirical

research explores the impact of organizational context, group design, group synergy,

process criteria, and material group resources on virtual team effectiveness (Furst et

al., 1999). Even less is known of the individual knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs)

associated with the successful achievement of interdependent task objectives within

these virtual collectivities. Models which could be used to better understand effective

virtual team performance have been limited to those based upon a traditional

collocated group perspective (e.g., Hackman, 1986; Guzzo, 1986; and Shea & Guzzo,

1984). Although some may argue that building upon existing knowledge on

collocated group effectiveness risks being overly simplistic, this approach establishes

a sound theoretical foundation for exploring those factors contributing to successful

virtual project team performance outcomes.

The two most commonly measured outcome criteria in the study of virtual

teamwork are satisfaction and performance (Hartman et al., 1992). Empirical studies

in this area, however, have yielded mixed results. Some virtual workers have been

content with their working conditions and confident in their abilities to deliver

outputs that meet organization-based objectives; others have not (Caudron, 1992;

11
DiMartino & Wirth, 1990; Ford & McLaughlin, 1995; Weiss, 1994). Some virtual

project teams have achieved their performance objectives while others have failed.

The question then becomes: what performance indicators are important to the

successful achievement of virtual project team outcomes.

A sizable portion of behavioral science research has focused on possible

connections between job performance and satisfaction. Current thinking about the

relationship suggests that individual satisfaction is moderated by one’s abilities to

perform. Thus, the more capable an individual is the more satisfied he or she tends to

become (Adams, 1963; Cofer & Appley, 1964; Lawler & Porter, 1967; Vroom et al.,

1973). Performance, in turn, is dependent on 1.) tasks that are clear, consistent in

purpose and highly motivated; 2.) group composition that is of the appropriate size,

mix of talents, and communications driven; and 3.) group norms that regulate

member behavior and promote coordination and proactive planning (Hackman, 1987

& 1990). A large portion of the virtual team literature, nonetheless, neglects to

address these important characteristics and instead focuses on personality traits and

other individual characteristics mildly associated with team performance outcomes

(Stevens and Campion, 1994). Without a firm understanding of the tasks, team

composition, and interdependent processes associated with successful virtual project

team outcomes, employee satisfaction, team performance, and the successful

completion of organization-based objectives are left to chance.

The varying context, composition and processes associated with virtual

teaming impose unique constraints on individuals’ abilities to complete tasks at a

distance. This is not to say that these tasks are in any way different from those of

12
conventional teams. To the contrary, the tasks performed by each are often times

comparable. What distinguishes virtual team performances are not the required tasks

but the challenges resulting from physical and psychological dispersion of virtual

team members?

Literature which addresses individual efforts to complete virtual tasks has

tended to focus on the role of leader or project manager as the overarching

contributor to effective virtual project team performance (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002;

Grenier and Metes, 1995; Kozlowski et al., 1999; Parker, 1996). This work has led to

significant discussions in the area of leadership competencies associated with

effective team performances. While leadership qualities are important to team

performances, Lurey (1998) found that team processes and team member relations

presented the strongest relationship to virtual team performance outcomes. Executive

leadership styles were only moderately associated with performance outcomes.

Although the study of virtual team leadership is invaluable to understanding virtual

project team success, exclusive concentration on team leaders overlooks the many

other members whose contributions are equally important for the achievement of

virtual project team performance objectives. Gorton and Motwani (1996) concur,

stating that although one person is likely to have overall project manager

responsibility, all team members must co-operate to set consensus schedules and

deadlines, and to take responsibility for individual interdependent deliverables.

The notion of co-operation suggests that virtual project team members and

managers must rely upon each other if they are to complete interdependent task

objectives successfully. This involves coordinating closely on the development of

13
task knowledge and depending upon one another to supply the range of information,

tasks, activities and services necessary to complete performance objectives.

Empirical research focusing on the interdependent nature of virtual teams has

been largely anecdotal in nature and base findings upon behaviors exhibited by

experimental participants versus seasoned virtual professionals (Gorton & Motwani,

1996). This methodology, although useful in helping understand the phenomenon as

a whole, limits our ability to explore the KSAs enlisted within organizational

contexts. Using seasoned virtual workers, who have demonstrated the ability to

maneuver within virtual environments and developed a track record of virtual work

success, as study participants, allows us to control for experience, ability, and the

tendency to quit when situations become difficult.

Definition of Key Terms

Before continuing, it is necessary to clarify the definition of several important terms.

The terms group, team, virtual team, and virtual project team are used

interchangeably to refer to a collection of two or more individuals who must interact

with one another, are interdependent, and have some degree of mutual awareness

(McGrath, 1984).

Virtual Project Team

Furst and colleagues’ (2003) definition of virtual project teams highlights the

essential characteristics differentiating virtual teams from collocated ones and hence

will be used as the primary definition for this study. Virtual project teams are said to

be:

14
 … collectivities of individuals geographically and/or organizationally

dispersed, interacting via a combination of telecommunications and

information technologies to accomplish a specific organizational task within

a specific timeframe. Virtual project teams allow organizations to pool

talents, experience, and expertise of employees who are dispersed

geographically and to promote resource sharing, since team members often

continue working on regular assignments at their home offices while

devoting time to their virtual project assignments. (p. 2)

Virtual teams are comprised of one project manager and any number of team

member resources. That number is dependent upon the number of experts whose

talent, experience, and expertise is deemed critical to the completion of

interdependent performance objectives.

Project Manager

Project managers are the leaders within virtual teams. They use their existing

expertise to assess objectives and develop teams of experts capable of achieving

interdependent tasks within a specific timeframe. Although the completion of virtual

project team goals is a collaborative effort, these individuals are ultimately held

accountable for the success or failure of the team.

Team Member Resources

Team member resources or team members refer to all organization-based

human resources solicited by project managers in attempts to complete

15
interdependent task objectives. Team member resources would include managers,

technical support personnel, executives, administrators, sales and support personnel

and other organization-based resources whose expertise is deemed critical to the

completion of virtual project team performance objectives.

Effectiveness (Perceived)

Perceived effectiveness refers to the project managers’ designation of

situation outcomes as either effective or ineffective. Although research on group

effectiveness has indicated the importance of delivering objectives, teamwork,

psychological needs fulfillment in determining effectiveness, research on virtual

teaming suggests that the distributed nature of virtual teamwork places significant

emphasis on the importance of completing performance objectives. Thus, project

managers’ perceptions of outcome (team’s delivery of objectives) were used to

determine effectiveness.

Performance Outcomes (Effective or Ineffective)

There were two possible outcomes associated with virtual project team

performances: effective or ineffective. Effective outcomes were associated with the

successful achievement of interdependent task objectives. Ineffective outcomes were

associated with the virtual project team’s failure to complete performance objectives.

Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs)

16
 Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs) refer to those behaviors exhibited by

project managers and team members that are significantly associated with

differences in virtual project team performance outcomes. A proposed list of 23

virtual teamwork KSAs and 54 code items was derived and tested to determine those

relating to outcome differences as perceived by project managers within virtual

teams.

Interdependence

Interdependence refers to the interaction among virtual project managers and

their team members. Some tasks demand high interaction; others are more

autonomous in nature. The degree of interdependence is dependent upon task

complexity. The following types of interdependencies (Thompson, 1967; and Van de

Ven, Delbecq & Koening, 1976) exhibit the varying interdependent workflow

processes required to complete virtual project team objectives.

• Pooled/additive – work is conducted separately then combined at the end to

finish the product/deliverable.
• Sequential – work flows unidirectionally from one member to another.
• Reciprocal – work and activities flow back-and-forth between team members
(one-by-one) over time.
• Intensive – team members must diagnose, problem solve and/or collaborate
simultaneously in order to accomplish the task(s).

For the purposes of this study, we will not address the level of interdependence. We

only acknowledge its importance to completing virtual project team objectives.

Empirical Studies on Virtual Project Team Effectiveness

Our review of the organizational literature suggests that most of the extant

research on virtual teams has been anecdotal and descriptive. For examples,

see Lipnack & Stamp (1997) and Armstrong & Cole (1995). We have found

17
 little in the way of systematic, empirical research into what contributes to the

success of virtual teams. Two exceptions are Jarvenpaa et al. (1998) and

Warkentin et al. (1997). (Furst et al. 1999, p. 250)

Empirical research on virtual team effectiveness is ripe for the picking. Furst

et al. (1999) use Hackman’s model of group effectiveness to suggest five areas of

research associated with effective virtual team performances: organizational context,

group design, group synergy, process criteria of effectiveness, and material resources.

First, in order for virtual teams to perform effectively, organizations must

provide the appropriate physical, financial and social support. A second factor, group

design, contributing to virtual team effectiveness is the degree to which team

structure, composition and norms impact performance outcomes. Virtual team

structure refers to the relationship between and among teams. Group composition

refers to the mix of competencies which make up virtual project team expertise.

Team norms include behavioral guidelines and expectations established and/or

enforced within the team or organization as a whole.

Group synergy refers to the team’s ability to build and establish identity and

trust, to manage team cooperation and heterogeneity, to control process losses,

reduce free-riding and social loafing, and to manage groupthink and groupshift

(Furst et al., 1999). Process criteria, the fourth factor associated with virtual team

performances, represents the level of effort, knowledge and skill given to

performance objectives and the appropriateness of strategies given the nature of the

interdependent task. Examples of process criteria questions include those which

18
assess the techniques used to guide and facilitate virtual teams through the

performance and/or development stage. The fifth and final research area associated

with virtual project team effectiveness is material group resources. Hackman asserts

that sufficient resources must exist if virtual project teams are to be effective.

Although Hackman referred directly to non-human resources, the importance of

human resources within virtual environments cannot and should not be overlooked.

The success or failure of virtual teams is dependent upon not only the

technologies enlisted but more importantly on the cumulative knowledge, skills and

abilities (KSAs) possessed by the team – project manager and team members. These

teams must exhibit the necessary KSAs to complete the ascribed performance

objectives. Thus, it can be said that effective virtual team performance is dependent

in part upon the collectivity and their ability to exhibit the appropriate mix of

competencies necessary to complete team performance objectives. This area of

virtual team design, specifically virtual team composition, has been relatively

untapped to date and will prove critical to determining and predicting the success or

failure of virtual project teams.

The Present Study

The objective of the present study is to improve our theoretical and empirical

understanding of the individual competencies contributing to effectiveness with

virtual project teams. Specifically, it seeks to identify those project manager and

team member competencies or KSAs which distinguish effective from ineffective

virtual team outcomes. Because very little previous empirical research has examined

effectiveness with virtual teams, this research has been designed to fulfill three

19
purposes: first, to determine those project manager and team member KSAs

associated with differences in virtual project team performance outcomes (success or

failure); second, to determine those competencies which are key to successful virtual

teamwork; and, third, to discover the virtual teamwork processes which accurately

depict differences in performance outcomes. This will be achieved through the

following:

• Establishing criteria for assessing virtual team effectiveness.

• Determining those project manager competencies associated with differences

in virtual project team performance outcomes.

• Determining those team member competencies associated with differences in

virtual project team performance outcomes.

• Ascertaining the combination of competencies (project manager and team

member) that best differentiate and predict effective from ineffective virtual

project team performance.

Significance of the Study

This study seeks to discover those KSAs that distinguish effective from

ineffective virtual project team performance (Figure 1.1). It is not aimed to

determine those project manager and team member KSAs associated with effective

performance. Nor does it intend to devise a list of those project manager and team

member KSAs contributing to ineffective virtual project team outcomes.

Figure 1.1: Graphic Describing Distinguishing Virtual Project Team KSAs

20
 Ineffective

Effective C
A E

B
D

Although a structured review of the virtual teamwork literature allows us to

amass some common understanding of the knowledge and skills associated with

effective virtual team performance, none has been found to determine whether the

display of those skills are attributable to differences in performance outcomes.

Figure 1.1 illustrates the KSAs associated with success and failure of virtual project

teams. Behaviors “B” and “C” are distinguishing KSAs. These behaviors distinguish

virtual project team successes from failures. “C” behaviors are associated with

virtual project team failures and “B” behaviors with virtual project team success. “A”

behaviors represent those fundamental KSAs exhibited by all virtual team members.

These KSAs exist irregardless of outcome. “D” behaviors were found to be

inconsequential. These behaviors were neither attributable to the success or failure of

virtual project teams. Finally, “E” represents those behaviors not picked up by the

methodology enlisted as part of this research effort. Those behaviors include but are

not limited to socio-technical KSAs, omissions from Stevens and Campion’s (1994)

research on teamwork requirements, and project manager and team member behavior

not apparent within the existing data set.

21
 As we know, not all behaviors can be associated with the success or failure to

achieve performance objectives. Some behaviors are mutually exclusive (B and C),

while others (e.g., technical competence) are said to exist regardless of outcome (A).

Still others thought to distinguish performance outcomes prove inconsequential (D)

or remain largely unexplored (E). The intent here is to discover those KSAs which

differentiate success from failure as a means to better understand those individual

competencies which make a difference in virtual team performance outcomes. By

looking at KSA interpersonal and self-management distinguishers (B and C), we are

better able to pinpoint those skills which can ultimately make a difference in the

success or failure of virtual project teams.

This research fills a significant void within the existing virtual teamwork

literature by not merely looking at those competencies associated with effective

outcomes but instead analyzing those project manager and team member skills which

are associated with differences between effective and ineffective performance. It

presupposes technical competence and moves beyond the presumption that positive

displays of behaviors are the only ones attributable to performance outcomes. It

supports the common knowledge that certain core skills must exist in order to

perform the job, and that those foundational skills are mandatory -- but not

discriminating -- factors of virtual project team performance. It also takes into

consideration the impact of positive and negative displays of behavior and their

potential to impact performance outcomes. Thus, results of this study will emphasize

the display of virtual teamwork behaviors and their association with differences in

perceived effectiveness.

22
 Research Questions
Research questions 1a and 1b look at the behaviors attributed to individual

members of virtual project teams. The intent here is to determine teamwork

knowledge, skills and abilities associated with differences in virtual project team

outcomes as perceived by project managers within virtual teams. Differences in

virtual project team outcomes are assessed to determine those project manager and

team member characteristics associated with differences in outcome. Research

question 1a evaluates forty derived project manager KSAs to determine those

capabilities differentiating team performance outcomes. Question 1b looks at

fourteen team member competencies to determine those individuals’ contributions to

differences in overall virtual team performance.

RQ1a: What project manager KSAs distinguish effective from ineffective

outcomes as perceived by project managers within virtual teams?

RQ1b: What team member KSAs distinguish effective from ineffective

outcomes as perceived by project managers within virtual teams?

Research question 2 looks specifically at those project manager and team member

KSAs differentiating virtual project team performance outcomes (i.e., findings from

questions 1a and 1b). The intent here is to determine the optimal KSAs which

distinguish effective from ineffective virtual team performance outcomes.

23
RQ2: Which project manager and team member KSAs are best predictors of

outcomes as perceived by project managers within virtual teams?

24
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews what is currently known in the area of knowledge and

skills associated with virtual project team performance. First, a definition of virtual

project teams is established, along with a typology for categorizing this study within

the larger stream of research on virtual teaming. Next, research on group

effectiveness is reviewed to establish a baseline for understanding the performance

attributes associated with effective team performance. Next, Stevens and Campion’s

(1994) requirements of teamwork are presented to examine what is currently known

in the area of Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs) associated with collocated

teamwork. Finally, a structured literature review of virtual teamwork is presented to

amass existing knowledge in the area of individual member competencies associated

with virtual teamwork.

Virtual Project Teams

Virtual Project Team Definition

Virtual project teams are collectivities of individuals geographically and/or

organizationally dispersed, interacting via a combination of

telecommunications and information technologies to accomplish a specific

organizational task within a specified timeframe. Virtual project teams allow

organizations to pool the talents, experience and expertise of employees who

are dispersed geographically and to promote resource sharing, since team

members often continue working on regular assignments at their home

25
 offices while devoting time to their virtual project assignments. However,

simply establishing virtual project teams in no way guarantees successful

team outcomes. (Furst, S. et al., 2003, p. 2)

Much of the original research on organization-based virtual teams was

conducted under the auspices of telework. Teleworking generally involved simply

working outside traditional or collocated office environments where technology was

not requisite. This move, however, represented a shift from centralized to

decentralized work arrangements and resulted in record increases in productivity,

which further popularized distributed work for organizations hoping to curtail costs

and boost employee performance. These and other benefits, however, were realized

by focusing on the outcomes associated with a limited number of autonomous work

tasks. Meanwhile, interdependent work tasks remained confined to more centralized

work arrangements.

By design, today’s virtual project teams take full advantage of the

effectiveness that team-oriented work offers while allowing for flexibility of team

context, composition and structure (Wong and Burton, 2000). What distinguishes

virtual project teams from other virtual work arrangements (i.e., mobile working,

telecommuting, teleworking, e-work, etc.) is their ability to incorporate and utilize

team member expertise regardless of physical or cultural proximity.

Today’s virtual workers are no longer thought of as autonomous agents but as

expert resources participating in interdependent networks assembled to successfully

complete organization-based performance objectives. They do not adhere to reliance

26
on autonomous work arrangements, nor is their mission to replicate physical

proximity. Instead, these collectivities depend upon a large array of communications

tools to foster the intensive interactions necessary to achieve interdependent

performance objectives.

Virtual Project Team Typology

… the virtual organization may not be so much a pure form as a continuum

for describing a range of relationships along the dimensions of space, time,

culture, and organizational boundary … To the extent that the relationships of

a firm take on more and more of these characteristics, the firm is relatively

more virtual. Being virtual, therefore, is a matter of degree (Kraut et al., in

press), and even firms that may not look virtual at the surface are acting

virtual in some aspects of their management. (DeSanctis et al., 1999 pg. 84)

Typologies have long been enlisted within the scientific community to help

organize research and make sense of complex phenomena. A number of typologies

have been developed to help researchers distinguish among conventional work forms.

Sundstrom et al. (1990), for example, used differentiation, integration, and work-

cycles to identify four types of work groups (advice and involvement, production and

service, project and development, and action and negotiation). Cohen and Bailey

(1997) presented a similar typology in their review of team and group literature.

More recently, these and other conventional work typologies have been modified to

help further conceptualize virtual teamwork.

27
 Patwar and Shariti (1997) suggest distinguishing among virtual teams based

on the nature of their interaction, utilization of resources, control and accountability,

working environment, cultural and educational background, and technological

compatibility. Bell and Kozlowski (2002) also propose the use of situational

indicators looking at temporal distribution, boundary spanning, lifecycle, and

member roles as means to categorize virtual team types. Table 2.1 outlines

definitions of these virtual teamwork characteristics.

Table 2.1: Typology of Characteristics of Virtual Teams

Characteristic Description
Temporal Distribution Ability of members to cross time boundaries based upon their
dependence on computer technology
Boundary Spanning Ability of members to cross functional, organizational and cultural
boundaries in attempts to meet team objectives
Lifecycle Ability of team to disband after objectives have been obtained
Member roles Ability of member to assume multiple roles based on needs dictated by
objective(s)

Source: Bell and Kozlowski, 2002

Each of these distinguishing characteristics, temporal distribution, boundary

spanning, lifecycle, and member roles, can be viewed along a continuum. At one end

lies the ideal virtual team typically discussed within the literature: distributed across

time; spanning numerous functional, organizational, and cultural boundaries; short-

lived; and comprised of members who each possess multiple roles within numerous

virtual teams (Bell and Kozlowski, 2002). On the other lie those virtual teams which

are more conventional in nature, those that are more closely aligned with collocated

work arrangements.

28
 The ideal virtual team does not limit membership based upon temporal

symmetry. Nor are limits placed on cross-functional, organizational or cultural

differences. The lifecycle of these ubiquitous teams is discrete and dependent upon

the collective achievement of team objectives. Once objectives are accomplished, the

team disbands. Finally, member roles within these ideal teams are substantially more

dynamic than their conventional counterparts. Team members are often expected to

assume multiple roles within the team. The goal of team composition is to obtain the

appropriate mix of knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) necessary to deliver on

interdependent team objectives.

Wong and Burton (2000) distinguish levels of virtuality based on context,

composition and structure. They describe the ideal virtual team as ad hoc, with zero

history, tasks that are novel and members that are physically distributed. Virtual

team context refers to the ad hoc or fluid nature of team membership. This context is

characterized by low team history, novel tasks and physically distributed members.

Group composition refers to the combined characteristics of the members involved

(Moreland and Levine, 1992). Ideally team members are assembled based upon

expertise versus physical proximity or personal disposition. This approach to team

composition maximizes efficient and effective utilization of human resources and

facilitates goal attainment. Finally, the structure of virtual teams is represented by the

nature and strength of member relationships. These interdependencies, although

much weaker than their collocated counterparts (McGrath, 1984), establish the

collective, task-related human networks by which virtual teamwork is accomplished.

29
 The importance of work relationships to performance outcomes has been

documented since the Hawthorn Studies (Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939). Here it

was concluded that worker productivity was positively correlated to group

interaction. Research on social support has also illustrated that close personal

relationships in the workplace lead to quantitative improvements in performance

outcomes (Bach, 1989; Bullis and Bach, 1991; Corson and Enz, 1999; Eisenberg,

Monge and Miller, 1983; Henderson and Argyle, 1985; Kram and Isabella, 1985; and

Tjosvold, 1983).

Members of virtual teams are equally, if not more, dependent upon the

development and utilization of member relationships as they are the glue which

holds teams together (Burris, 1998; Lurey and Raisinghani, 2001; Hart and McLeod,

2003). Members of distributed teams are generally limited in their ability to enact

change. Consequently, they must rely upon the contributions of other team members,

advocates acting on their behalf, to ensure the completion of individual and team

deliverables. Without adequate participation from team members, the completion of

interdependent task objectives becomes virtually impossible.

It is not enough to say that virtual team interdependence is critical to effective

performance. We must move to understand the interpersonal and self-management

KSAs associated with the fulfillment of team performance objectives. This process

must begin by evaluating the indicators of effectiveness by which virtual project

team performances are assessed.

30
 Virtual Project Team Performance Outcomes

Hackman’s model of group effectiveness (Figure: 2.1) has been widely tested

and validated using groups as diverse as surgical teams (Edmondson, 1986), factory

workers (Safizadeh, 1991), airline crews (Hackman, 1990) and mental health care

teams (Sundstrom et al., 1990; Vinokur-Kaplan, 1995). It is a well -known and

empirically tested model depicting the context and conditions associated with group

effectiveness within collocated environments. More importantly, the emphasis on

socio-psychological versus socio-technical constructs provides a framework which

allows us to unmask the group performance characteristics associated with effective

virtual team performance as well.

Figure 2.1: Conceptual Frame of Effective Group Performance

31
 Context and Conditions Group Performance

Task Structure
- Clear Delivers Output that
- Consistent with purpose Meets Objectives
- High “motivating
potential” score

Group Composition
- Appropriate size Meets the Psychological
- Mix of talents Needs of Members
- Interpersonal skills for
communications

Group Norms
- Regular member Group Cohesion
behavior (Ability to Work
- Promote coordination Together in the Future)
and proactive planning

Source: Gallivan, 2001 (Adapted from Hackman, 1987, 1990)

Furst et al. (1999) warns, “Some might argue that by starting from Hackman’s

model we risk pouring new wine into old bottles.” However, at this stage in the

research lifecycle of virtual project teams, it is more important to build on what is

already known about collocated teams, assessing aspects of performance that are

generalizeable to virtual teams and offering suggestions for areas where

generalization falls short.

Hackman (1986, 1990) defines effectiveness in terms of three distinct criteria,

ability of the team to: deliver on objectives, meet the psychological needs of its

members and work together in the future. The degree to which each of these factors

contributes to virtual team effectiveness is dependent upon the particular context and

32
conditions. It stands to reason that the ability of project teams to meet performance

objectives would be mutually important within both collocated and virtual team

environments. Regardless of the team members’ physical locations, they are

generally rewarded in accordance with their completion of performance objectives.

This, however, assumes an effective organizational reward system which adequately

incents interdependent task performance.

The ability of members to fulfill each other’s psychological needs would

seemingly vary in importance. The physical proximity inherent within collocated

teams fosters commitment on the part of team members. That degree of commitment

is not as prevalent within virtual team contexts (Holton, 2001). As a result, virtual

team members are generally not as deeply invested and would not exhibit the same

need for psychological fulfillment. Lastly, collocated or traditional teams in which

membership persists may find the ability to work together in the future critical to

continued success. Short lived teams like virtual ones would not.

Relatively more attention should therefore be given to the task dimension than

the social and personal dimensions of performance when exploring the factors

associated with effectiveness within virtual team environments because: 1.)

temporary teams formed to complete interdependent objectives are evaluated based

almost exclusively on their ability to deliver, and 2.) one of the most powerful ways

to enhance teamwork and psychological fulfillment is to foster task-related

interactions which contribute to the delivery of team objectives (Hackman, 1986).

Importance of Perception

33
 One factor or performance not prevalent within Hackman’s model of group

effectiveness is the impact of team members’ beliefs in their ability to perform

effectively. Potency theory states there must be a minimal belief that the team can

perform effectively before tasks can be accomplished -- the greater the potency the

greater the effectiveness. Thus as project manager and team member perceptions of

team competence, management support and resource availability increases, so will

team effectiveness. Jarvenpaa and colleague’s (1998) research on swift trust

highlights the importance of team members’ beliefs in each other and the virtual

team as a whole. They describe how team member confidence in rewards can incite

increased cooperation among members of task-interdependent virtual teams.

Potency theory suggests exploring project manager perceptions of specific

member competencies as they relate to:

- Member talent, experience and expertise

- Leadership support

- Team member support

- Availability of expert resources

Virtual Project Team Consistency

Project Manager

In physically collocated teams close proximity of the actors and the project

manager provides the context for ongoing monitoring of activities and events

and thus enhances their ability to respond to requirements.[In virtual

teams] …, attempts were made to define tasks clearly at the outset, yet

34
 frequently these tasks were not fulfilled in time or according to their technical

requirements. The collaborating bodies were accountable to the task leaders

and the project coordinator who had limited authority to enforce any penalties

for failure to achieve their tasks. (Pawar and Sharifi, 1997, p. 288)

The project manager is the lifeblood of the virtual team. They exist to ensure

that all concerns and issues relevant to the achievement of team performance

objectives are channeled to the proper place. As team facilitators, they oversee the

combined efforts of team members and assume responsibility for communicating and

collaborating with critical human resources.

The literature on virtual teams suggests that effective performance is largely

based upon team composition and the determination of human resources critical to

providing the essential knowledge, skills and abilities to complete performance

objectives (Stough et al., 2000; and Warkentin et al., 1997). The acquisition of this

expertise thus forms the principal goal of project managers within virtual teams. In

order to develop these teams, the project manager must have a firm understanding of

what is required. They must be keenly aware of their role and the roles of others

deemed necessary to completing interdependent tasks. They must be clear on the

objective to be attained. Finally, they must understand the action independent and

interdependent required. Combined, this task knowledge contributes to the

development of appropriate team-building strategies and the acquisition of expert

resources necessary for virtual project team success.

35
 Task knowledge alone is not enough. Pawar and Sharifi’s (1997) study of

virtual versus collocated team success found that physical proximity provides a

context for ongoing monitoring and control of activities, thus enhancing the teams’

ability to meet performance objectives. Although virtual team tasks were clearly

defined and team members were accountable to the project manager, virtual leaders’

physical and resulting psychological dispersion left them without the authority to

enforce penalties for failure to comply. As a result, virtual project teams frequently

failed to complete performance objectives on time and in accordance with specified

guidelines.

Project managers are accountable for the success or failure of virtual project

teams; however, they often lack the authority to enforce penalties forcing team

member compliance and increasing the likelihood that performance objectives will

be met. In order to ensure successful team outcomes, project managers within virtual

teams must not rely on unfounded authority but discover new ways to gain

cooperation from critical human resources. Be that as it may, the primary approach

to the study of cooperation within virtual teams has been that of Control.

Control is defined as processes that attempt to influence members of a team

to engage in behaviors that promote the attainment of team objectives. Current

research on enacting control within virtual contexts ascribes a negative connotation

to the term “control.” As a result, trust and other implicit norms of behavior are

considered diametrically opposed.

Both control and trust ensure that team members respond in a manner that

increases the possibility of successful outcomes. Control, however, is based upon

36
rules of engagement, prescriptive processes and procedures, hierarchical structures,

access controls and other formal controls which force compliance, while trust relies

upon the building and utilization of relationships and other norms of behavior which

foster voluntary cooperation.

The concept of trust is prevalent in the social sciences literature. It has been

examined in many other disciplines as well, each offering a variant definition.

Recent attempts to clarify this concept have led to the development of taxonomies of

trust (Brockner and Siegel, 1996; Kramer and Tyler, 1996; Zucker, 1986).

Nonetheless, nearly all definitions of trust share one condition: the truster (project

manager) must be willing to place himself or herself in a potentially vulnerable

position with the trustees (team members). That is, the truster must be willing to risk

something as a result to placing confidence in the trustees.

Although precise definitions of trust are beyond the scope of this research

effort, within the literature five styles of trust are said to exist (Gallivan, 2001).

Table 2.2: Five Styles of Trust

Knowledge-based trust Trust based upon a prior history of transaction between

Character-based trust
Institutional-based trust
Justice-based trust
Swift trust
two parties;
Trust that is assumed, based on certain attributes of the
other party;
A trusting environment, as ensured by guarantor
agencies;
Related to the concept of procedural justice (i.e. ensuring
fair procedures);
A ‘fragile’ form of trust that emerges quickly in virtual
workgroups and teams.

The last, swift trust, relates directly to virtual teams. In it, Meyerson et al. (1996)

describe a unique form of trust which develops quickly among virtual team members

37
to aid in the completion of interdependent tasks. Swift trust manifests itself in the

project manager’s ability to rely upon team members. It can be said to exist when the

project manager successfully delegates, escalates and/or seeks involvement from

team members without the aid of formal control mechanisms (rules of engagement,

hierarchical processes and procedures, command and control structures, and access

controls).

Virtual team research has oscillated in placing emphasis on either trust or

control as the best means of facilitating interdependence between project managers

and the team member resources upon whom they rely. Das and Teng (1998)

challenge the current emphasis on trust suggesting that “trust between agents is one

pathway that can lead to confidence that desired outcomes will occur, but it is not the

only such pathway” (Gallivan, 2001, p. 287). They conclude by suggesting the use of

control mechanisms for virtual contexts void of trust. O’Leary (2001) also addresses

the notions of trust and control not as diametrically opposite but as complements

suggesting that a combination of both trust and control are important to the

attainment of virtual team performance objectives.

Team Member Resources

Whether they acknowledge it or not, leaders are most successful when those

who work for them are willing to work with them. Members exert higher

levels of effort, responsibility, accountability, and appreciation when there is

shared respect and positive regard for the achievement of each other, our

leaders, and comembers … (Seiling, 2001, p. 114)

38
 Project managers within virtual teams are not successful without commitment

and contribution from team member resources. The distributed nature of virtual

teaming requires that project managers not only trust team members but that team

members serve as advocates on their behalf, acting to ensure that components

necessary to the objective are completed in a timely fashion. In turn, virtual team

members must be mindful that goal attainment is not the responsibility of one

individual – the project manager. Instead, they must recognize it as an effort in

which all members must participate. Each member must be willing to accept

responsibility and accountability for team performance outcomes. In doing so, they

increase the likelihood that team objectives will be attained.

Once team member resources are determined, the project manager must seek

their involvement. Soliciting involvement can, however, prove problematic. It

requires that expert resources be available, accountable and responsive. Only after

expert resources have committed can we begin to assess those team member

competencies necessary to complete team performance objectives.

Team member action may take the form of direct or indirect intervention.

Often times team members possess the necessary talent, experience and expertise to

complete critical deliverables. Other times they serve as facilitators, enlisting help

from other experts deemed more competent. It is this process which allows

interdependent networks to branch out until the KSAs necessary to achieve virtual

team performance objectives are attained.

39
 Virtual Teamwork

This study … focuses on KSAs which are required or made more salient by

the distinctive nature of teamwork situations, such as increased social and

interpersonal requirements. The study does not focus on the technical KSAs

required by the jobs. This does not suggest that technical competence is less

important. In fact, because of the enhanced requirements of flexibility and

versatility in teamwork settings, the demand that team members have a

breadth of technical KSAs is often greater (Hackman, 1987; Sundstrom, De

Meuse and Futrell, 1990; Walton, 1972). However, the expectation that

employees be capable of the technical demands of the job is a factor in all

work systems, and not unique to the team environment. Consequently,

technical KSAs will not be a focus of the study. (Stevens and Campion, 1994,

p. 504)

Leadership, technological proficiency and availability of expert resources all

lend themselves to effective virtual project team performance. Technology forms the

conduit by which interdependent communications and collaborations among virtual

team members occur. To that end, a significant portion of virtual team research

continues to focus on the existing and emergent technologies which enable

distributed work arrangements. In the past, the emphasis on technology

overshadowed the contributions of human resources to successful virtual outcomes.

In recent years, however, there has been an increasing awareness that these

technologies are merely tools by which interdependent virtual work is conducted.

40
This understanding has lead to a shift in focus allowing us to explore not only the

tools, but also the social and interpersonal factors contributing to virtual project team

performance outcomes.

An increasing emphasis on the social and interpersonal demands associated

with effective virtual teamwork leads us to focus on the major interpersonal

processes by which interdependent tasks are accomplished – communications.

Communications has been defined as “the process by which information is

exchanged and understood by two or more people, usually with the intent to motivate

or influence behavior.” (Daft, 1997, p. 560 from Dawn Kelly Article) You may

notice that this definition is reminiscent of definitions for control. It stresses its intent

to move beyond merely transference of information toward influencing behaviors.

The process of communications thus has as its underpinning a focus on the

interaction among virtual constituents.

According to Guzzo’s (1986) model of group effectiveness (Figure 2.3), the

successful completion of team objectives is defined based upon measurable team-

based outcomes, team member consequences resulting from processes enlisted, and

the enhanced ability of the team to perform effectively in the future. He uses the

notion of task interdependence to derive three criteria associated with effective

performance.

Figure 2.2: A Model of Group Task Effectiveness

41
 Outcome
Interdependence

Task Task-related Group Task

Interdependence Interaction Effectiveness

Potency

Source: Shea and Guzzo, 1987

The three factors related to team effectiveness are task interdependence,

outcome interdependence and potency (Guzzo, 1986). Task interdependence refers to

the dependent relationship which exists among team members as a result of the

demands of the task. According to Guzzo, the relationship among team members

should change in accordance with the demands of the task. Thus, high interaction

will be required of team members conducting highly interdependent tasks. Similarly,

low team member interdependence should exist for tasks requiring little interaction

among peers. Thus the degree of interdependence (pooled, additive, sequential or

intensive) should vary in accordance with the task. The following are levels of

interdependence said to exist among cooperating entities:

• Pooled/additive – work is conducted separately then combined at the end to

finish the product/deliverable.

• Sequential – work flows unidirectionally from one member to another until

completed.

42
 • Reciprocal – work and activities flow back-and-forth between team members

(one-by-one) over time until completed.

• Intensive – team members must diagnose, problem solve and/or collaborate

simultaneously in order to accomplish the task(s).

Performances are dubbed effective when the appropriate level of interaction is

associated with team member performances. For example, writing a white paper may

require little or no interaction with team members. Thus, necessary task

interdependence can be said to be low. In this situation, effectiveness would be said

to result as a consequence of little or no interaction amongst team members.

Ineffectiveness would result if high levels of interaction were enlisted. Higher levels

of interaction would most likely result in coordination issues and general confusion

amongst team members.

Kayworth and Leidner (2000) suggest several strategies for facilitating task-

related interaction within virtual contexts.

• Instilling trust
• Emphasizing continuous communications
• Setting meetings and rules of engagement
• Conducting periodic face-to-face meetings
• Engaging in team building activities at the onset of virtual team formation
• Building awareness of cultural distinctions and minimizing differences
where possible

Project managers, by design, are held responsible for managing and

coordinating all actions related to the attainment of team performance objectives.

Doing so involves communicating task knowledge and process information to those

individuals, team member resources, whose expertise is deemed necessary to

complete team objectives. The majority of these messages take the form of

43
information exchanges initiated in an effort to establish meetings which help

emphasize continuous communications and establish rules of engagement.

Significantly less interaction has as its intent to instill trust, engage in team building

activities, build awareness of cultural distinctions and minimize differences.

Although considered vital to facilitating team cooperation, the association between

social interaction and the achievement of team objects is indirect and thus less time

is generally spent on these activities.

Finally, since conducting face-to-face meetings is often impossible,

communications channels form substitutes for physical proximity. Team member

resources use a combination of telecommunications and information technologies to

work together and ensure that key components to the objective are completed with

the specified timeframe. Some of these efforts are the result of permanent team

membership. Others come from team member resources specifically engaged to

complete the task at hand. And, once their duties are fulfilled, they disperse.

Outcome interdependence refers to the degree to which important rewards are

based upon team performance. This is similar to the concept of goal interdependence

(Campion and Mdesker, 1993). Outcome interdependence can be said to exist if team

member rewards are tightly coupled and low outcome interdependence if they are

not. High outcome interdependence promotes teamwork and cooperation. Thus, high

outcome interdependence can be said to positively impact performance outcomes

when team members are completing interdependent tasks. However, if high outcome

interdependence is associated with low interdependent tasks, ineffectiveness will

result as a consequence of “too much” participation.

44
 Finally, potency refers to team members’ collective belief that they can

accomplish the objective before them. Potency is comprised of a number of factors.

These include perception of the members’ degree of competence (skill and

capability), support provided by management and the organization as a whole, and

the availability of necessary resources (people, information, tools, time). The belief

being that greater potency leads to greater effectiveness. Janis (1982), however,

warns that over confidence or arrogance can prove detrimental to team performance.

Virtual Team Formation

Today’s global markets have fostered the virtual organization [team] because

companies must move fast to take advantage of opportunities and bring human

resources together more quickly than if they all had to be assembled in a single

location. Since companies often lack expertise or resources in all areas, the

virtual organizations (and virtual teams) are formed. (Stough, Eom and

Buckenmyer, 2000, p. 372)

In most instances virtual project teams are formed out of necessity. The project

manager’s role is to ensure that these teams are comprised of individuals possessing

the knowledge and skills necessary to complete prescribed performance objectives.

When existing team expertise falls short, the project manager must show ample

effort, competence and strategy in incorporating additional team members. These

members must not only fill competency gaps but exhibit dedication and commitment

toward team performance.

45
 Much of the work on group composition within virtual teams has focused on

personality traits versus a heterogeneous mixture of expertise necessary for teams to

complete their performance objectives. This approach, though informative, is overly

prescriptive in nature, suggesting that effective performance is simply a matter of

combining the appropriate mix of personalities. It does not take into account the

knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) necessary to complete individual and team

performance objectives.

This researcher is interested in the human aspects of virtual teamwork, thus the

approach taken in this study will look at the individual competencies associated with

effective team performance outcomes. Specifically, I will focus on the project

manager and team member KSAs associated with differences in virtual project

teams’ outcomes. In order to do so, I enlist the model of required teamwork proposed

by Stevens and Campion (1994).

KSA Requirements for Collocated Teamwork

This study focuses on KSAs and not personality traits or dispositions. Even

though research has demonstrated that personality-based selection within collocated

teams may be capable of having modest validity (Barrick and Mount, 1991; Tett,

Jackson and Rothstein, 1991), the history of success in the prediction of work

performance has been much better with KSA-based systems (Hunter and Hunter,

1984; Reily and Chao, 1982; Schmitt, Gooding, Noe and Kirsch, 1984). Furthermore,

a focus on KSAs emphasizes team member attributes, which can be influenced,

rather than traits or dispositions, which are presumed to be relatively stable and

unchanging.

46
 Stevens and Campion (1994) identify 14 KSAs associated with effective

team member performances within collocated work contexts and classify them into

five categories: conflict resolution, collaborative problem solving, communications,

goal setting and performance management, and plan and task coordination (see Table

2.3).

Table 2.3: Knowledge, Skills and Abilities Required for Collocated Teamwork

Interpersonal KSAs
Conflict Resolution
1 The KSAs to recognize and encourage desirable but discourage undesirable team
conflict.
2 The KSAs to recognize the types and sources of conflict confronting the team and
to implement an appropriate conflict resolution strategy.
3 The KSAs to employ an integrative (win-win) negotiation strategy rather than the
traditional distributive (win-lose) strategy.
Collaborative Problems Solving
4 The KSAs to identify situations requiring participative group problem solving and
to utilize the proper degrees and types of participation.
5 The KSAs to recognize the obstacles to collaborative group problem solving and
implement appropriate corrective actions.
Communications
6 The KSAs to understand communication networks and to utilize decentralized
networks to enhance communication where possible.
7 The KSAs to communicate openly and supportively: that is, to send messages
which are: (1) Behavior- or event-oriented; (2) congruent; (3) validating; (4)
conjunctive; and (5) owned.
8 The KSAs to listen nonevaluatively and to appropriately use active listening
techniques.
9 The KSAs to maximize consonance between nonverbal and verbal messages, and
to recognize and interpret the nonverbal messages of others.
10 The KSAs to engage in ritual greetings and small talk, and recognition of their
importance.

Self-Management KSAs
Goal Setting and Performance Management
11 The KSAs to help establish specific, challenging, and accepted team goals.
12 The KSAs to monitor, evaluate, and provide feedback on both overall team
performance and individual team member performance.
Planning and Task Coordination

47
 13 The KSAs to coordinate and synchronize activities, information, and task
interdependencies between team members.
14 The KSAs to help establish task and role expectations of individual team
members, and to ensure proper balancing of workload in the team.

Conflict resolution KSAs refer to members’ abilities to recognize and

encourage productive conflict while discouraging counterproductive conflict. As we

are aware, conflict is often the catalyst to positive change and action within

organizations. Without it, team members jeopardize becoming stagnant. On the other

hand, teams must be careful that internal conflict does not result in ill feelings and

other sentiments which negatively impact team performance. When destructive

conflict exists it must be confronted by the team, and members must employ

integrative strategies which make win-win resolutions possible for all.

Collaborative problem solving KSAs refer to individually enlisted skills and

abilities which ensure that interdependent team requirements are identified and that

the proper degree of interaction results. In other words, members must understand

when to seek help from others and how to go about it. In doing so, they must possess

the ability to recognize obstacles impeding team member participation and remove

them accordingly. Without this realization, individual and team effectiveness could

fall victim to workaholism, resource constraints and other teamwork coordination

difficulties.

Communications KSAs refer to individual-level competence regarding the

utilization of existing communications channels. This includes the wherewithal to

circumvent those same channels when problems occur. To achieve proper

communications among team members, Stevens and Campion (1994) suggest that

48
communications efforts be behavior or event oriented, congruent, validating,

conjunctive and owned. Team members must listen, applying active versus passive

techniques, to ensure that they understand the messages being conveyed. This

includes attending to both verbal and nonverbal cues and engaging in ritualistic

greetings, small talk and other important cultural norms to ensure open

communications within the team. Such action ensures that the relevant conditions

and context are maintained to achieve performance outcomes.

Goal setting and performance management KSAs refer to members’ abilities

to collaborate on the establishment of mutually accepted team goals. Members must

not only work together to establish these goals but monitor, evaluate, and provide

feedback on their achievement as well.

Lastly, planning and task coordination KSAs refer to the ability of members

to work together. Specific emphasis is placed upon the ability to coordinate and

synchronize activities, information and task interdependencies critical to the

completion of team-based performance objectives. In order to accomplish task

objectives, members must work to establish mutually accepted task and role

expectations. Although difficult, these efforts ensure proper team commitment and

workload balancing.

A Structure Review of Virtual Teamwork Literature

An exhaustive literature search was conducted to find both research and

practitioner-related literature which informs potential KSAs associated with virtual

teamwork. Each article was reviewed and then categorized in accordance with its

49
contribution to the understanding of project manager and team member KSAs

impacting virtual team performance outcomes. For the purposes of review, the

relevant literature has been arranged according to themes thought to be associated

with virtual team effectiveness (see Appendix A).

A review of 21 empirical and practitioner-based articles on virtual teamwork

produced 23 themes that suggest behaviors for improving virtual project team

effectiveness. These themes highlight the importance of perceived: talent, experience

and expertise; leadership support; team member support; and psychological presence

of expert resources to virtual project team performance outcomes. The following

provides a closer examination of these themes. Each is discussed with regards to

findings presented in the empirical and practitioner-based literature on virtual

teamwork.

Theme 1: Accountability

The first theme revealed in the analysis of literature on virtual teamwork

effectiveness is the importance of team member accountability. Accountability refers

to team members’ desire and ability to communicate openly and supportively,

sending messages which are behavior or event-driven, congruent, validating,

conjunctive and owned. When done appropriately, team messages serve to

coordinate and synchronize activities, information and task-related interdependencies

which contribute to the achievement of virtual project team performance objectives.

Gorton and Motwani’s (1996) research on virtual team effectiveness

concludes that although one group (project managers) is generally responsible and

50
held accountable for the achievement of team objectives, all team members must co-

operate and share responsibility for individual deliverables if teams are to be

effective. Thus, project managers must recruit members who accept accountability

for key deliverables on time and as promised (Johnson et al., 2001). These

individuals must exhibit strong ethics to promote trusting team environments where

the appropriate information and communications technologies, the establishment of

team identity and appropriate levels of interdependence lead to successful

performance (Fuehrer and Ashkanasy, 1999). Finally, Furst et al. (2003) suggest

setting norms to govern team member accountability, commitment and productivity.

Theme 2: Adaptability

A second theme uncovered in the evaluation of virtual teamwork literature is

the need for project managers to exhibit adaptability. Adaptability is probably the

most highly cited leadership skill associated with effective virtual project team

performance. Effective project managers are highly flexible and adaptable. They rely

upon methods which draw out silence, protect the weak and encourage advocacy

within virtual teams (Warkentin et al., 1997). All the while, they exhibit the

creativity and innovation necessary to devise strategies which facilitate collaborative

problem solving and the implementation of adaptive routines (Kayworth and Leidner,

2000; Robey et al., 1999; Wong and Burton, 2000).

Although the impact of socialization on the development of trust is well

established, virtual teamwork requires members who are flexible, and who exhibiting

the ability to perform without proper time for socialization as well (Johnson et al.,

51
2001). They must acculturate quickly in accordance with team norms (Das and Teng,

1998; and Townsend and DeMarie, 1998), using control mechanisms when

necessary to dictate interaction between virtual team members. These methods of

control should promote the establishment of specific and challenging goals and ante

and ex post deterrents; and they should also blend and harmonize values and beliefs

as ways of maneuvering obstacles impending team progress.

Theme 3: Availability

Availability on the part of critical human resources is described as an important facet

contributing to the overall effectiveness of virtual project teams. Availability refers

to perceptions of team members’ accessibility, which leads to open supportive

communications, coordination, and synchronization of activities, information and

task-related interdependencies contributing to effective virtual project team

performances.

McGrath’s (1984) research on social presence supports the importance of

fostering interaction, inclusion and participation to feelings of being there and

ultimately the achievement of successful team outcomes. One of the most difficult

parts of working virtually is controlling task-related interaction. In order to

accomplish team objectives, project managers must believe that team members are

available if the team is to perform effectively. Consequently, much research has been

dedicated to exploring the issues of control as they relate to team members’

performance of duties. Fuehrer and Ashkanasy (1999) suggest instilling strong

business ethics as a means to ensure that critical team member resources are

52
available, accountable and responsive. Furst et al. (2003) refer to Tuckman’s stages

of team development to suggest the establishment of team norms which foster

accountability, commitment and productivity.

Theme 4: Building Bonds

Project managers construct expert teams based largely on their ability to formulate

relationships or build bonds. Thus, a significant portion of the literature mentions the

importance of engaging in ritual greetings, small talk and other strategies for

developing and utilizing relationships which facilitate the completion of virtual

project team performance objectives.

When comparing performance among f-t-f teams and virtual teams,

Warkentin et al. (1997) found that virtual teams generally did not outperform f-t-f

teams given the same amount of time. However, relational links among team

members significantly contributed to effective information exchange and ultimately

team performance outcomes. These findings lead us to conclude that building group

cohesion and fostering interaction, inclusion and participation are important skills for

increasing virtual team performance (Kayworth and Leidner, 2000; and McGrath,

1984).

Holton (2001) lists several factors contributing to virtual team development,

including fostering a positive team climate, creating regular opportunities for

communicating, promoting action learning, and implementing team building

activities. Lurey and Raisinghami’s (2001) research concludes that developing

virtual team processes and member relationships present the strongest association

53
with virtual team performance outcomes. Research on building and maintaining

online relationships suggests that available communications channels be used

effectively and that face-to-face meetings be conducted when possible to develop

deeper rapport among team members. Telephone and email were found to be the

most beneficial technologies for building bonds (Pauleen and Yoong, 2001).

Theme 5: Client Partnering

The ability to partner with clients is only briefly mentioned within virtual teamwork

literature. Bal and Foster (2000) found that bringing aboard collaborative partners,

both inside and outside the company, impacted virtual team performances. Although

only one article suggests the importance of client partnering, this researcher’s

personal experience and an iterative review of data indicate that it may be associated

with virtual project team outcomes and thus warrants further study. Client partnering

refers to the project manager’s ability to identify situations requiring participation on

the part of the client. This KSA leads to the coordination and synchronization of

activities, information and task interdependencies between project managers and

their clients.

Theme 6: Competence

Although competence is rarely mentioned directly within the literature on

virtual teamwork, the existence of necessary talent, experience and expertise is often

inferred (Johnson et al., 2001; Stough et al., 2000). Effective virtual teams must rely

on the expertise of their members. Thus, project managers and team members must

54
exhibit the ability to complete deliverables, which includes monitoring, evaluating

and providing feedback on individual and team performances.

Theme 7: Delegation/Escalation

A seventh theme evident in the structured review of virtual teamwork literature

reveals the importance of the project manager’s ability to delegate and/or escalate

key deliverables to other members of the virtual project team. Delegation and

escalation refer to the ability of the project manager to depend upon sponsorship

from management and support for team member resources. Bal and Foster (2000)

found that virtual project team performance was impacted by the ability to seek

advice and support from senior management. Several strategic recommendations

have been put forth for improving performance of virtual teams. Stough et al. (2000)

conclude that in order to be effective, virtual teams must capitalize on existing

expertise and that interdependence must be constantly emphasized. That

interdependence refers not only to team members but to management as well (Furst

et al., 2003). Co-operative delegation and consulting must occur at all levels if

virtual team members are to exchange much-needed information (Gorton and

Motwani, 1996).

Theme 8: Empathy

Although the word empathy is generally not used to describe the reasons

virtual team members are compelled to help one another, it adequately depicts the

motivating factor. Empathy refers to project managers’ and team members’ abilities

55
to understand others’ feelings, situations and motives. A significant portion of virtual

teamwork literature touts the importance of control mechanisms in assuring team

member availability, accountability, and responsiveness. However, in the absence of

control, it becomes clear that sentiment has a major impact on members’ abilities to

listen non-evaluatively as a means to help attain performance objectives.

Effective project managers are empathetic toward virtual team members (Kayworth

and Leidner, 2000). Warkentin et al. (1997) found that members must be patient,

persistent, persevering, tolerant, flexible and most importantly, understanding, if they

are to achieve performance objectives. The awareness of mutual needs (self and

other) helps overcome obstacles to the communication of trust and leads to the

eventual accomplishment of team performance objectives (Fuehrer and Ashkanasy,

1999).

Theme 9: Empowerment

Virtual teamwork literature describes the project manager’s ability to

empower team members as an important factor to overall team performance.

Empowerment refers to the project manager’s ability to bestow others with the

ability to provide key deliverables which lead to the achievement of team

performance objectives. In order to empower members, researchers suggest virtual

team project managers enlist and emphasize team member interdependence (Stough

et al., 2000; Robey et al., 1999).

Theme 10: Facilitation

56
 The tenth theme that emerges from the structured literature review is

facilitation. Facilitation refers to the ability of project managers and their team

members to direct problems and concerns through proper channels to ensure

adequate resolution. Through reliance on open and supportive communications,

virtual project teams coordinate and synchronize activities, information and tasks

which ensure that team performance objectives are achieved. Bal and Foster (2000)

specifically state the importance of team facilitation to overall virtual team

performance outcomes. Others mention the important role that internal management

must play in sponsoring and facilitating team efforts, concluding that the absence of

feedback and facilitation have adverse effects on virtual team outcomes (Kayworth

and Leidner, 2000; Stough et al., 2000).

Theme 11: Managing Expectations

Managing expectations is mentioned as one important factor to virtual project

team performance. Managing expectations refers to project managers’ and team

members’ abilities to communicate openly to ensure that stakeholders are aware of

all possible outcomes. Bal and Foster (2000) describe managing expectations as

members’ abilities to anticipate and prepare for performance losses impacting overall

team outcomes.

Theme 12: Planning

The project manager’s ability to strategize and plan at the onset of a project is

referred to indirectly as an important behavior differentiating virtual project team

57
performance. It refers to the project manager’s ability to identify situations and

utilize the proper degree and type of participation required for participative group

problem solving. Furst et al. (2003) refer to this planning stage as the ability to

establish norms which govern team member accountability, commitment and

productivity. The process of planning culminates in the project manager’s ability to

articulate and assign responsibilities with schedules, work deadlines and suggestions

(Kayworth and Leidner, 2000)

Theme 13: Pre-work

Furst et al. (2003) also mention the importance of project manager actions

which ensure relevant information on task objectives is attained. Pre-work, actions

which clarify or add to existing knowledge, ensures the proper coordination and

synchronization of activities, information, and task interdependencies between team

members occurs.

Theme 14: Determining Resources

A fourteenth theme that appears in the structured review of virtual teamwork

literature is the ability of the project manager to find human resources critical to the

completion of team performance objectives. Determining resources is paramount to

the success of virtual teams. Doing so allows for the establishment of expertise

deemed critical to the completion of performance objectives. Finding the right

people – experts – allows for the continued development of formal and informal

58
networks which enhance overall communications and help circumvent obstacles

related to collaborative working.

Bal and Foster (2000) simply refer to this as the ability to identify potential

virtual team members. Warkentin et al. (1997) and Gorton and Motwani (1996) also

indicate the importance of finding human resources, suggesting that this action leads

to the development of key linkages and a better understanding of team member roles

and responsibilities.

Theme 15: Responsiveness

Although a significant portion of literature on virtual teamwork overshadows

the role that team members play in ensuring the successful completion of virtual

team objectives, team member responsiveness is mentioned as important to the

attainment of successful outcomes. Responsiveness refers the perception that team

members are willing and able to follow up on requests and needs posed by other

members of the team. Fueher and Ashkanasy (1999) mention ethical responsibility as

one of the major obstacles impeding trust within virtual teams. Ethical responsibility,

relates directly to the members’ stance toward responsiveness when limited authority

and control exists.

Theme 16: Approval

Although a small portion of the literature on virtual teamwork describes

approval-seeking behavior as important to team performance outcomes, a review of

the data strongly suggests that the degree of participation sought by project managers

59
is directly associated with virtual project team performance outcomes. Stough et al.

(2000) refer to this as interdependence among team members. They go further to

suggest that involvement-seeking behaviors (delegation, escalation, empowerment,

approval, and guidance) on the part of the project managers impact virtual team

effectiveness.

Theme 17: Guidance

Project managers’ abilities to understand personal limitations and solicit guidance

and opinions from others more knowledgeable or competent are also mentioned as

an important attribute to effective virtual teamwork (Gorton and Motwani, 1996;

Kayworth and Leidner, 2000).

Theme 18: Self-Confidence

The fifteenth theme which appears in the structured review of virtual

teamwork literature is self-confidence. Self-confidence refers to the project

manager’s belief that he or she can perform in a manner which facilitates in the

team’s ability to adequately fulfill performance objectives (Johnson et al., 2001;

Warkentin et al., 1997). Project managers must not only be good “self-starters” but

also possess the discipline and confidence necessary to develop and manage

successful virtual project teams.

Theme 19: Team Member Confidence

60
 Project managers’ confidence in individual team members is also important

to the successful completion of team performance objectives. Team member

confidence refers to the project manager’s belief that team members can monitor,

evaluate, and provide feedback on their performance and the overall performance of

the team. Virtual team research on trust establishes the importance of believing in

team member competencies (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998; Stough et al., 2000). Raghurma

et al. (2001) also noted the importance of trust, stating that trust and organizational

connectedness are significantly associated with individual adjustments to virtual

teamwork.

Theme 20: Team Member Partnering

Team member partnering was revealed as important to virtual project team

performance. Team member partnering refers to the project manager’s ability to

engage team members in participative problem solving and the synchronization of

activities, information and task interdependencies. Research on virtual team

effectiveness suggests the importance of bringing in collaborative partners (Bal and

Foster, 2000; Gorton and Motwani, 1996). Factors contributing to virtual team

development include fostering a positive cooperative team climate, soliciting team

member participation, and devising local practices for coordinating with remote

members (Holton, 2001; Kayworth and Leidner, 2000; Raghurma et al., 2001; Robey

et al., 1999).

Themes 21-23: Understanding Action, Roles, and Objectives

61
 Finally, project managers’ abilities to discern actions, roles, and objectives

were emphasized within the structured literature review on virtual teamwork.

Together, these themes can be categorized as task knowledge. Task knowledge

ensures the establishment of specific, challenging and accepted team goals;

coordination and synchronization of activities, information and task

interdependencies; and the establishment of roles, expectations and proper workload

balancing (Lurey and Raisinghami, 2001; Raghurma et al., 2001).

The ability to establish a set of directions (mission, vision and objectives) and

criteria for measuring virtual effectiveness is essential and must be established and

consistently called upon if virtual teams are to perform effectively. This includes

specifying objectives and identifying team member responsibilities impacting virtual

team performance outcomes (Bal and Foster, 2000; Scott and Townsend, 1994;

Stough et al., 2000). It is also important for virtual teams to establish an identity and

an awareness of mutual needs, which include expectations and the clarification of

tasks and responsibilities (Fuehrer and Ashkanasy, 1999).

Project managers must possess the necessary skills to articulate and assign

responsibilities with schedules and work deadlines (Kayworth and Leidner, 2000).

This generally involves facilitating creative meetings which define objectives, ways

to assess agenda items, proper presentations which ensure team success, and

appropriate participants; distribute documents beforehand; establish leadership,

methods to draw out silence, and ways to protect the weak; implement specific and

challenging goals; and encourage advocacy (Das and Teng, 1998; Gorton and

Motwani, 1996; Warkentin et al., 1997).

62
 Virtual teams benefit from learning to express these and other explicit norms

and role expectations to new members who will, in turn, be required to acculturate

quickly (Townsend and DeMarie, 1998). In any event, virtual workers should be

aware of the coordination complications associate with working virtually. Combating

collaborative difficulties requires the establishment of adaptive routines, clear role

expectations, shared cultural knowledge about each other and the work, and rich

communications media (Wong and Burton, 2000).

Proposed KSA Requirements for Successful Virtual

Teamwork

Project Manager

A review of the collaborative problem solving category presented by Stevens

and Campion (1994) suggests that planning, client and team member partnering, and

behaviors which solicit the involvement of others are linked to the project manager’s

ability to facilitate collaborative problem solving within virtual teams. Partnering

with clients and team members represents an ability to identify situations requiring

participative problem solving. Seeking involvement, represented by the project

manager’s efforts to delegate and/or escalate, empower, gain approval or acceptance,

and seek guidance, is representative of the various degrees of participation that are

enlisted to facilitate the achievement of virtual project team performance objectives.

Finally, adaptability, planning, team member resource determination, and developing

and using bonds all represent the project manager’s awareness of performance

obstacles and the subsequent implementation of corrective strategies.

63
 Stevens and Campion (1994) note five separate KSA category definitions

under the communications theme. All except those behaviors associated with

maximizing consonance between verbal and nonverbal messages and the recognition

and interpretation of nonverbal cues are seemingly linked to communicative

behaviors exhibited by project managers within virtual teams. The remaining

communications KSAs suggest that determining team member resources, building

and utilizing bonds, managing expectations, and employing empathy are important to

1.) understanding communications networks and the utilization of decentralized

networks to enhance communications where possible; 2.) opening and supporting

communications of messages which are behavior or event-driven, congruent,

validating, conjunctive and owned; 3.) listening nonevaluatively and enlisting the

appropriate active listening techniques; 4.) maximizing consonance between tacit

and explicit messages; and 5.) engaging in ritualistic greetings, small talk and other

norms of group behavior.

Goal Setting and Performance Management KSAs relate to the project

manager’s ability to establish specific and challenging objectives and assess member

performances leading to the achievement of interdependent goals. In accordance with

that description, four of the proposed project manager KSAs were thought to relate

to performance outcomes: self-confidence, team member confidence, understanding

objectives and competence.

Planning and Task Coordination KSAs were associated with abilities to

coordinate and synchronize information and activities requiring interdependent work.

This includes those activities which are related to the establishment of task, work,

64
and role expectations among team members. Pre-work, planning, client and team

member partnering, understanding roles and actions, and facilitation were all thought

to be associated with the planning and coordination of interdependent tasks within

virtual project teams. Project managers’ abilities to conduct pre-work represented

their attempts to understand and coordinate activities and member resources required

to complete interdependent team objectives. Planning involved strategizing to

determine client and team member interdependencies.

Team Member

A review of the category definitions put forth by Stevens and Campion (1994)

suggests that team members’ received presence (availability, accountability and

responsiveness) was potentially associated with all interpersonal KSAs. In addition,

the ability to manage expectations and demonstrate empathy were seemingly linked

to differences in virtual project team outcomes as perceived by project managers

within virtual teams. Virtual team research suggests that team members’ perceived

availability, accountability, and responsiveness are associated with the ability to

communicate openly, resolve conflict, and collaborate with others. The display of

empathy was thought to impact active listening and ensure that all relevant

information is attained from the various interdependent pieces. Perceived team

member competence was linked to goal setting and performance management.

Specifically, it was thought to relate to the team’s abilities to self-monitor and assess

contributions relating to performance outcomes. Finally, team member facilitation

65
was attributed to the successful planning and coordination of virtual project team

tasks.

66
 CHAPTER 3: METHODS

This study’s approach and methodology were designed to answer the

research questions presented in Chapter 2 and to provide information which will

further our understanding of individual team member contributions to differences in

virtual project team performance outcomes. As indicated in the literature review,

little empirical research has been conducted to address the question of which project

manager and team member KSAs are associated with effective virtual teamwork.

The research approach used in this study was designed to extend knowledge by using

narrative analysis to empirically assess the experiences of seasoned virtual project

managers, allowing for the determination of project manager and team member

KSAs associated with differences in effective versus ineffective virtual team

performances.

Chapter 3 will present the research setting, research design, data collection,

code development procedures, proposed virtual teamwork KSAs, and method of data

analysis. The research setting provides background on E-learn, the organization

studied as part of this research effort. Participants and selection criteria are then

discussed. Next, the research design and methodology are explained, after which the

procedures used to develop the coding scheme are described. Finally, a phased

approach to data analysis is presented.

67
 Research Setting
Organization Background

E-learn, which was headquartered in San Francisco with development centers

in Dublin, Ireland, developed and sold electronic learning (e-learning) solutions for

many of the world’s fortune 500 companies. Virtual project teams had been a way of

life for the field-based sales organization within E-learn since its inception in 1985.

At one time the world’s largest distance learning company, E-learn specialized in the

creation of content and deployment tools for the global distribution of computer and

web-based training solutions.

During its early years, the company placed emphasis on content development,

enlisting rudimentary deployment tools (i.e., diskettes, CDs, etc.) to facilitate client

access to and distribution of training products. The company employed a significant

number of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) but relied heavily upon joint ventures

with industry leaders (e.g., Microsoft, Cisco, Lotus, Novell, etc.) within the

information technology (IT) space to keep up with industry standards.

In an effort to expand its offerings, E-learn began developing “softskills”

content in addition to its core technology-based content. This expansion was a direct

result of client requests for training content outside of the Information Technology

(IT) space. With the insurgence of Internet and Intranet-based technologies, E-learn

expanded further and began developing deployment tools necessary for servicing

clients within distributed and virtual work environments. This corporate strategy

spawned the development of a series of proprietary deployment tools aimed at

facilitating the distribution of training enterprise-wide.

68
 As the distance learning industry grew, E-learn found itself unable to

compete with other companies who focused exclusively on training content or

deployment technologies. To add to their difficulties, the overemphasis on and

resources allocated to the development and maintenance of deployment technologies

began to compromise E-learn’s biggest asset, quality content. This allowed

competitors to grab increasingly larger pieces of their niche business.

Content quality and viable deployment tools continued to suffer as a result of

continued deployment issues, problems and concerns. The company responded to

this dilemma by simply throwing additional resources at the mounting problems.

Soon, critical resources were being funneled from content development and field

support to address escalating client concerns.

Efforts to grow and expand the business soon ensnared E-learn in a vicious

cycle of producing inadequate products, content and deployment tools. Ultimately,

this quandary placed E-learn and its field-base sales organization in the position of

sustaining a client-based fraught with problems.

Sample Group

E-learn’s field-based sales organization was international, consisting of

offices in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, France, Germany, South Africa, Great

Britain, Canada, Mexico, Thailand, Central America and the United States. The

majority of the field organization was virtual, working either out of their homes or

via satellite offices. The field organization was comprised of two functional areas,

sales and support. The sales team was responsible for the sale of products and

69
services. The support tem was responsible for product implementation, deployment,

and overall client satisfaction.

Sales and support members were strategically placed based upon geographic

area and region. Each member of the organization had a territory – a geographically

determined client-base consisting of existing clients and prospects within their region.

Hence, a sales manager often worked with one or more support managers depending

on the distribution of clients and prospects throughout a geographic area. The

primary emphasis on this setup was to provide clients with ready access to products,

support and services.

Because of the vast role played by the support team, its functions were

divided into three specialties.

Table 3.1: E-Learn Virtual Team Membership

Specialties Abbrev. Role Description

Learning Manager LM Supports training program for local clients
(non-technical). Overall project and
relationship manager for client-base.
Strategic Accounts SAM Supports training program for global clients
Manager (non-technical). Overall project and
relationship manager for client-base.
Technology Manager TM Manages technical issues associated with
client products for client-base.

Upon hire, E-learn offered field personnel the option of setting up a satellite

or home office. Members opting for satellite offices simply expensed the associated

monthly fees. The majority (98%) set up home offices. In this case, the company

provided an initial budget This included a laptop, 2-3 phone lines, an all-in-one

printer (printer, copier, fax and scanner), a high-speed Internet connection, desk &

70
chair, cell phone, software and other tools deemed necessary to support virtual

teaming and client support. Thereafter, expenses were direct-billed or rectified

monthly.

In the earlier stages, members were expected to conduct a moderate portion

of their work in face-to-face interaction with clients. However, E-learn’s investment

in distributed work technologies enhanced the ability to complete tasks virtually.

Because of the need for physical interaction, sales personnel often spent significantly

more time meeting with clients. In contrast, support personnel used a combination of

telecommunications and information technologies to interact virtually with clients

and team members. The following narrative excerpts describe the types of work

LM/SAM’s embarked upon virtually.

I am responsible for implementing new programs, training programs

throughout [E-learn] in the…in the mid-Atlantic area, which is really the

Philadelphia…Philadelphia area in Pennsylvania. I work with clients to not

only implement their training program, but also to market those programs to

their internal users. In addition to that I work with clients to periodically,

meeting quarterly, to review status, progress of the program including reports,

how they are currently doing. And, then modifying our objective, meaning

the client’s objective, and my objective to then increase usage within the

program and increase visibility within the program.

Another project manager responded to interviewer questions regarding his or her

roles and responsibilities as follows.

71
 I’m the main contact for my customer base. I’m the day-to-day contact.

Kind of the liaison between our customers and [E-learn]. I’m responsible for

a lot of problem-solving activities, course order, course information

responsibility. I assist with marketing and roll-out plans. I do open house

sessions. Really, just kind of the day-to-day contact between the company

and the customer.

Virtual Teams

All E-learn virtual project teams were physically distributed. Their members

worked from home or satellite offices and were geographically dispersed. The field

team (CORE) consisted of a sales manager (RAM), support manager (LM/SAM),

and technology manager (TM). Table 3.1 lists the members of CORE and their

general roles, responsibilities, and functions. In general, support team members

resided in the region in which their client-base was headquartered. For example,

Detroit-based clients were supported by CORE team members residing in the Ohio

and Michigan areas. The location of these CORE members, however, depended upon

the client location and support requirements. For example, global clients were

assigned a global RAM and SAM whose location was inconsequential. These global

CORE teams often enlisted local support from regional TMs and LMs.

In order to address the plethora of issues encountered by their clients, project

managers must frequently call upon additional resources outside of the CORE.

Technical Support (TECH) serves as the first line of defense for addressing many

client concerns. Although clients are persuaded to contact TECH directly when

72
concerns arise, they habitually rely upon the project manager to funnel issues,

questions and concerns to the appropriate resources. As a result, these members are

in constant communication with TECH and other support resources (i.e.,

Development, Management, Legal, Customer Care, etc.) to ensure that virtual project

team objectives are achieved. When issues require specialized expertise, additional

resources are engaged. The new team is what will be referred to as the Extended

CORE.

Typology

Bell and Kozlowski’s (2002) virtual team typology helps describe the varying

composition and function of virtual project teams. Table 3.3 outlines those

characteristics which distinguish E-learn virtual project teams from others.

Table 3.3: Virtual Team Typology

Characteristics Description
Temporal Distribution Ability of members to cross time boundaries
based upon the dependence on computer
technology
Boundary Spanning Ability of members to cross functional,
organizational and cultural boundaries in
attempts to meet team objectives
Lifecycle Ability of team to disband after objectives have
been obtained
Member roles Ability of members to assume multiple roles
based on needs dictated by objective(s)

Source: Bell and Kozlowski, 2002

73
 The Extended CORE team is temporally distributed. Depending upon the

time of day, project managers could work with technical support representatives at

any one of three sites: San Francisco, California; Dublin, Ireland; or Frederickton,

Canada. These call centers communicate by database so that reported issues can be

shared among TECH members. As a result, the working ability of virtual project

teams expands to 24 hours.

Virtual project teams frequently span organizational boundaries to include

multinational clients and partners in an effort to support and promote training

programs. Project managers are responsible for the overall health of their clients.

Thus, their responsibilities vary from providing on-site technical support and hand-

holding to designing surveys and customizing marketing programs. This work

necessitates conducting routine virtual meetings that often incorporate resources

from multiple functional areas. Hence, it is not uncommon for E-learn virtual project

teams to cross cultural and organizational boundaries. Once engaged, these extended

resources work together until their objectives are achieved. At that point, they

disband and the CORE remains to tackle future client needs.

E-learn attempted to put a number of guidelines in place to ensure the

adequate utilization of team member resources, including extensions. These “rules of

engagement,” however, are routinely breached in the name of expediency.

Participants

This study looks at salient virtual teamwork experiences of LMs and SAMs

(LM/SAM) in an effort to assess the interpersonal and self-management KSAs

associated with virtual project team performances as perceived by project managers

74
within those teams. Study participants had two-plus years experience as project

managers within E-learn virtual teams. The total number of virtual project managers

(LM/SAM) participating in this study was twenty-three. This number, however,

represented over 100 virtual teams and 145 virtual teamwork experiences. These

teams ranged in size from three to ten members depending upon the situation and the

number of experts included in an effort to achieve performance objectives.

The sample group was derived from two major specialty areas within E-learn:

the Learning Manager (LM) group, which is responsible for supporting client-

training programs at a local or regional level and the Strategic Account Manager

(SAM) group, which is responsible for overseeing client programs at a global level.

The two groups performed similar tasks and interacted as one functional unit. This

group (LM/SAM) was responsible for the majority of E-learn’s client-based support.

In addition, the group worked closely with other organization-based support entities

(technical support, customer service, development, executive sales staff, etc.); thus,

their salient narratives accurately depicted the overall picture of virtual teamwork

within E-learn.

Potential study participants were located using an initial list of North

American virtual project managers provided by E-learn executives. This list was

comprised of LMs and SAMs only. Participation was voluntary. The main objective

was to discover participants willing to share their virtual teamwork experiences.

Twenty-three of a potential 44 respondents agreed to participate in the study,

representing a 74 percent response rate.

75
Table 3.2: North American Participants, Virtual Location, Gender, and Job

Classification.

Learning Manager (LM) Strategic Account Mgr. (SAM) Total

Male Female Male Female
Home Office 3 14 0 3 20
Satellite Office 1 0 1 1 3
Total 4 14 1 4 23

Table 3.2 shows the demographic characteristics of project managers

participating in the study. Twenty of the 23 virtual project managers worked from

home-based offices, and three worked from satellite locations. The total number of

supervisors participating was two. The majority of respondents reported up through

the support organization. Participation was representative of all three geographic

areas within the North American sales region (West, Central and East).

The haphazard nature of virtual working made interview time and availability

the most inhibiting factor. Potential respondents were limited to the North American

Sales Organization because of support from the Vice President of North American

Sales and the relative ease of access to respondents. All potential participants were

contacted initially via email. This blanket approach netted little response.

Consequently, phone calls and personalized emails were enlisted to establish

mutually convenient interview times. The majority of interviews were conducted

during the respondents’ “normal” work day. However, several were conducted on

weekends and other off-peak hours as determined by participants.

Research Design
This research effort has been designed as an exploratory qualitative study. It

approaches the study of virtual teamwork from the eyes of project managers, using

76
accounts of team challenges and successes as a means to better understand the

impact of member competencies on virtual project team performance outcomes.

According to Hackman (1987, 1990), performance outcomes are a result of

task structure, group composition and group norms. Choosing a qualitative design

highlights the importance of virtual team context and conditions on interdependent

team member behaviors and provides the means for researching virtual work

environments where investigators have limited access and control (Yin, 1994;

Creswell, 1998; Ragin, 1987).

Narrative analysis is used to capture the project manager and team member

KSAs perceived as important to overall success according to project managers within

virtual teams. These narratives, based on verbatim transcription, were assessed using

an inductive process (Boyatzis, 1998; Eisenhardt, 1989; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

This approach is taken to: 1.) explore the performance attributes associated with

effective outcomes, 2.) determine project manager and team member KSAs

significantly distinguishing perceived outcomes, and 3.) ascertain the foremost

competencies contributing to outcome differences.

An inductively derived research informed codebook (Appendix B: Codebook)

was devised to unearth emergent patterns thought to relate directly to differences in

virtual project team performance outcomes while allowing for a detailed portrayal of

the seasoned virtual work experience, including individual attributes and behaviors

(Creswell, 1998; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The intent here was to assess stories of

virtual team ineffectiveness and effectiveness as told by the project managers

(LM/SAM). These individuals were asked to share salient stories in which they

77
perceived virtual team outcomes as either effective or ineffective. Narratives were

then examined to determine those member KSAs which were in fact associated with

differences in team outcomes.

Data Collection
This study was informed by two major data sources. The primary source of

data collection was in-depth semi-structured interviews of project managers within

virtual teams. This approach to the study provided rich data describing the

interdependent behaviors of virtual project managers and the members upon whom

they depend to complete performance objectives.

Secondly, as a participant observer and virtual project manager at E-learn for

six years, I developed a keen understanding of the organization, its culture,

functional areas, job roles and the phenomenon of virtual teaming as a whole. This

experience provided me with a unique opportunity as a researcher to view the

phenomenon from within and presented countless opportunities to discuss thoughts,

feelings and personal theories candidly with fellow virtual workers. I have called

upon these experiences to frame the incumbent research questions, design, and

discussion of results.

Semi-Structured Interviews

Data collection began in spring 2001 with twelve virtual project managers.

The remaining eleven interviews were completed by summer 2002. All 23 interviews

were conducted by the researcher via telephone and lasted anywhere from 60 to 90

minutes.

78
 A semi-structured interview script ensured consistent collection of data.

Because the interviews were designed to collect data on behaviors and processes

exhibited within virtual team environments, the interview script contained general

questions meant to draw out member behaviors in accordance with memorable

virtual teamwork situations. At the time of interview, additional questions were put

forth to draw out the detail and intent of both the project manager and his or her team

members. A copy of the interview protocol is provided in Appendix C.

The semi-structured interview script was used to collect data on two main foci:

times when respondents felt:

• effective while working within virtual project teams.

• ineffective while working within virtual project teams.

Central to the script were questions associated with perceived effectiveness.

Participants were asked to provide step-by-step details on the behaviors associated

with team performance outcomes. This critical incident interview methodology

(Boyatzis, 1998) allowed for the determination of individual characteristics and

behaviors impacting virtual project team performance outcomes.

Critical incident interviews (CIIs) were conducted to unearth project

managers’ feelings, perceptions and understanding of member roles and

responsibilities. This technique was selected because of the researcher’s interest in

learning about each member’s specific thoughts and behaviors as they carried out

their roles in completing the objective. The CII technique has been found to be a

useful method for uncovering detailed information about work behavior (Flanagan,

79
1954). Research has shown it to be a reliable and valid method for obtaining accurate

descriptions of individual behavior (Motowidlo et al., 1992; Ronan & Latham, 1974).

Prior to beginning the formal interview process, participants were asked

introductory questions meant to determine the following: job role, tenure with

company, reporting structure and perceived responsibilities. This provided additional

demographic information and served as an introduction to the interview process.

Finally, the interview protocol concluded by questioning respondents on the

characteristics, knowledge, skills and/or abilities which they perceived as mandatory

for successfully working within virtual team environments.

Code Development Procedures

Once collected, an iterative review of the data was conducted to reveal a list

of 23 themes thought to distinguish effective from ineffective team performance as

perceived by project managers within virtual teams. Figure 3.1 illustrates the process

by which the codes and codebook (Appendix B) were derived.

The researcher conducted all critical incident interviews of virtual project

managers, taking extensive notes along the way. Once completed, each transcript

was read, categorized, coded, then parsed based upon performance outcome

(effective or ineffective). Each narrative was read and reread in attempts to pinpoint

attributes thought to distinguish performance outcomes. This process yielded an in-

depth list of distinguishers thought to impact virtual team performances. As a

secondary measure, each narrative was then outlined and evaluated in accordance

with this list of themes to add clarity (Boyatzis, 1998). The resulting lists and

outlines were then amassed along with themes gathered from a structured review of

80
virtual teamwork literature. These efforts resulted in an initial list of KSAs thought

to be associated with differences in virtual project team performance outcomes.

Themes not readily apparent within the existing literature stream included:

partnering, confidence, managing expectations, and presence. Although a review of

the literature indicates the importance of relationships within virtual teams, an the

data reveals the importance of two specific types of relationships, internal or team

member relationships and external or client-centered relations. The importance of

project manager and team member confidence to performance outcome was also

largely derived from a review of the data. Interview data implies that project

managers’ belief s in their personal capabilities and those of their team members is a

foundational attribute to effective virtual project team performances. As well, project

managers’ abilities to gage and temper stakeholder expectations were supported by

the data. Finally, the importance of perceived social presence (i.e., team member

availability, accountability, and responsiveness) was derived exclusively from a

review of the data.

Figure: 3.1: Codebook Development Process

All All All

Interview & note taking Create list of distinguishers Outline each narrative

Random 46 (23/23) Develop/revise codebook

Literature review &
Interrater Reliability with definitions & narrative
Combine/revise themes
examples

Random 10 (5/5) Random 10 (5/5)

Train Coder Assess Codebook

81
 Next, a random set of ten narratives, five effective and five ineffective, were

selected to examine and further clarify codes. This process facilitated the refining of

labels used, definitions assigned and unearthed additional KSAs thought to impact

virtual team performance outcomes. After several iterations, a solid codebook was

devised and an independent coder was introduced.

An independent coder, blind to the conditions, was enlisted to help establish

the reliability of the codes and code items thought to distinguish performance

outcomes. This coder underwent extensive training that involved iteratively coding

and resolving discrepancies for test transcripts (n=10). Once codes and definitions

had been mastered, each narrative was independently coded by both the coder and

researcher. Frequencies were not captured as part of this analysis. Reliability was

calculated between the researcher and independent coder based on 46 randomly

selected transcripts. The resulting interrater reliability, based upon a percentage

agreement on presence (Atkinson, 1958; McClelland, 1961, 1985; Smith, 1992), was

83%.

Coding Scheme

A coding sheet (Figure 3.2) was devised to allow for the collection of two

types of data. Section one: Aspects of Performance included those performance

characteristics thought to distinguish effective from ineffective project team

outcomes. Section two: Teamwork Attributes captured data on project manager and

82
team member KSAs thought to be associated with differences in virtual project team

performances.

Aspects of Performance
Aspects of Performance were further divided into three categories: outcome,

group performance and psychological needs. Outcome variables captured the project

managers’ perceptions of whether the virtual team completed their objective or not.

The coding of this variable is based upon direct statements from the project manager

regarding his or her perceptions of narrative outcomes as either effective or

ineffective. This measure was then used to determine project manager and team

member KSAs associated with differences in perceived outcomes. Virtual team

research suggests that team performance is ultimately associated the ability to meet

objectives; however, team cohesion and fulfillment of psychological needs were

significantly attributable as well (Appendix D). Thus, group performance and

psychological needs criteria were incorporated.

Figure 3.2: Coding Table

83
 Aspects of Performance
____ Turnaround/Success
Outcome
Respondent’s action changes the situation
____ 1.) Effective: Respondent perceived
from a negative experience to a positive one.
performance as positive in outcome
____ Work Customization
____ 2.) Ineffective: Respondent perceived
Respondent shapes work environment (e.g.:
performance as negative in outcome
time, location …) to suite personal needs.
Group Performance
____ Delivered Objectives ____ Meets Deadlines/Timeliness
Respondent is timely in their performance or
Completes goal, task or situation.
delivery on request … adheres to time limits.
____ Teamwork
____ Fun/Fulfillment
Group cohesion … the ability of team
Respondent derives pleasure or positive
members to work together in the future.
feelings when performing task(s)
Psychological Needs
____ Beginning & End/Closure
____ Individual Control
Situation has a concrete start and finish.
Respondent has direct influence over
outcome

Teamwork Attributes
Project Manager Team Members
A B C D
(+) (-) (+) (-)
PW Pre-work
PL Planning
PAR Partnership
1 Client
2 Team Member
CON Confidence
1 Self Confidence
2 Resource Confidence
ADP Adaptability
TKW Task Knowledge
1 Understanding Roles: Self & Other
2 Understanding Objective(s)
3 Understanding Action
REL Relationship Awareness
1 Resource determination
2 Bonds
SEK Seeking Involvement
1 Delegation/escalation
2 Empowerment
3 Approval
4 Guidance
MEX Managing Expectations
CP Competent
EMP Empathetic
FAC Facilitative
PRE Presence
1 Available
2 Accountable
3 Responsive

Delivering objectives represents project managers’ beliefs that completing

the ascribed goal, task or situation is important to effective virtual team performance.

84
Not only was meeting objectives important, but equally important was the

interdependent nature in which tasks were conducted. Team cohesion or the

perceived member relations was important to project managers’ perceptions of team

effectiveness. Finally, psychological needs or the degree to which virtual teaming

contributed to members’ feelings of personal growth and well-being also proved

important to perceived outcomes. Psychological needs virtual team research suggests

that team performance is ultimately associated with the ability to meet objectives;

however, team cohesion and fulfillment of psychological needs were significantly

attributable as well (Appendix D).

Psychological Needs

For the purposes of this study, team member psychological needs were

represented by six distinct performance variables: individual control, turnaround,

work customization, timeliness, fulfillment and closure. These six variables were

thought to capture the emotional needs of both project managers and their team

members.

Individual control captured the desire of members to have some command

over the team performance outcomes by which they are ultimately evaluated. Pawar

and Sharifi’s (1997) study of virtual and collocated teams found that physical

proximity provides a context for ongoing monitoring and control of activities and

events, thus enhancing the teams’ ability to complete performance objectives. Within

virtual contexts, however, team members were accountable to the project manager,

yet these leaders lacked the authority to enforce penalties for failure to comply.

85
Consequently, virtual project teams frequently failed to complete objectives on time

and in accordance with prescribed guidelines.

Turnaround was thought to capture members’ desires to transform negative,

conflict laden situations into positive ones. Although team member competencies

and the utilization of appropriate strategies often resulted in the transformation of

client conflict into win-win situations for all involved, the resulting anxiety reduction

was not sufficient to differentiate perceptions in performance outcome. In other

words, situations dubbed negative at their onset made it increasingly difficult for

project managers to perceive them otherwise.

The perceived ability to customize individual work environments captures

members’ desires for freedom and the latitude to successfully complete tasks without

the restrictions generally imposed within traditional contexts. Much research has

explored the benefits associated with customizing virtual work environments in

terms of time, place and space (e.g., Townsend et al., 1998; Qureshi & Vogel, 2001;

Gorton and Motwani, 1996). This freedom allows individuals to complete work tasks

in a manner suiting their personal preferences. Thus, it can be said that enlisting

personalized work flow processes and other freedoms heightens individual and team

performance.

Timeliness represents members’ desires to meet performance objectives. By

definition, virtual project teams are tasked with using technologies to accomplish

organizational objectives within a specified timeframe. In addition, research

comparing collocated to virtual team performance has shown that virtual workers

utilize time in a manner that can either help or hinder job performance (Gorton &

86
Motwani, 1996). The correct strategic use of time thus leads to psychological

fulfillment as a result of practices and project management techniques which exploit

the gains and minimize the losses associated with effective virtual teaming.

Fun and fulfillment represent members’ desires to enjoy the job and the

relationships associated therein. A review of effectiveness literature reveals the

importance of productivity, manager judgment, measurable outcomes, member

consequences, future capabilities, and satisfaction as measures of team performance

(Campion et al., 1993; Guzzo et al., 1986; Hackman and Walton, 1986). Research on

virtual teaming has placed significant emphasis on the importance of member

satisfaction (e.g., Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001; Potter et al., 2000; Stough et al., 2000).

Using satisfaction as a criterion for measuring effectiveness allows individual

member sentiments to be incorporated as valid measures of performance. Fulfillment

or the ability to derive pleasure when performing tasks captures virtual workers’

overall satisfaction with team performances and can thus be considered positively

associated with the fulfillment of psychological needs.

Closure represents members’ desires to complete team performance

objectives. In order to be considered successful, teams and their members must

understand the objective; establish required roles and necessary action, and explicitly

state evaluation criteria (Bal & Foster, 2000; Lurey & Raisinghami, 2001; Raghurma

et al., 2001; Warkentin et al., 1997; Wong & Burton, 2000). Without these steps,

virtual teams will not have the necessary information to complete performance

objectives, and members are ultimately left floundering. This inability to complete

performance objectives results in increased anxiety and dysfunction.

87
 Teamwork Attributes
Teamwork attributes represent those project manager and team member

KSAs thought to relate to differences in outcomes as perceived by project managers

within virtual teams. These code items were derived based upon a structured review

of relevant virtual teamwork literature and an iterative review of data. The code

development process yielded a total of 23 themes thought to distinguish virtual

project team performance outcomes (Table 3.2). As can be seen, some codes have

been combined into larger categories such as partnership, confidence, task

knowledge, relationship awareness, seeking involvement and presence.

The Teamwork Attributes section was designed to allow for the coding of

behaviors associated with both project manager and team member performance.

Some codes and categories (pre-work, planning, partnering, confidence, adaptability,

task knowledge, relationship awareness, and seeking involvement) were associated

with project manager performances only. While others (managing expectations,

competence, empathy, and facilitation) referred to both project manager and team

member behaviors.

Project managers were not coded for availability, accountability and

responsiveness. The assumption being that if project managers were not present there

would be no situation to share. In contrast, presence was critical to team members’

abilities to respond to project manager solicitation. Thus, only team members were

coded for availability, accountability and responsiveness (social presence).

Each code or theme has a maximum of four possible indicators (A, B, C, and

D). A & B referred to those behaviors exhibited by the project manager. C and D

88
referred to those exhibited by one or more members of the team. Codes A and C

reference positive displays of that behavior while B and D reference negative ones.

The ability to code for both the positive and negative occurrences of behavior

resulted in 54 possible coding items. The decision to include both positive and

negative occurrences of proposed behaviors was based upon the fact that negative

occurrences are often more readily apparent. Thus, allowing for both the positive and

negative indications of individual member behaviors increases the probability of

capturing key behaviors distinguishing performance outcomes. The following

provides examples of this coding scheme.

Project Manager KSAs

Project managers were coded for a possible 40 code items and 20 KSAs.

Each coded item contained two distinct possibilities (A) positive and (B) negative.

For example, if a project manager exhibited self-confidence, a code of Con1a would

be noted. To the contrary, if a project manager exhibited a lack of self-confidence, a

code of Con1b was assigned.

Team Member KSAs

Since project managers depended upon a multitude of team member

resources, coding often represented behaviors exhibited by more than one resource.

Team members were coded for a possible 14 code items (positive and negative), six

of which were based exclusively on their perceived social presence. Team members

were not coded for exhibiting leadership behaviors (pre-work, planning, partnering,

confidence, adaptability, task knowledge, relationship awareness, or seeking

89
involvement), only those behaviors associated with direct requests from the team. As

with project managers, code indicators were represented by two distinct possibilities:

(C) for the positive display of behavior and (D) for the negative display of behavior.

For instance, team members exhibiting empathy were ascribed a code of EMPc.

Conversely, if team members exhibited a lack of empathy EMPd would be indicated.

The following sections provide details, definitions and descriptions of those

project manager and team member behaviors perceived as paramount to differences

in performance outcome by project managers within virtual teams.

Proposed Virtual Teamwork KSAs

Project manager characteristics and behaviors can be viewed in relation to

three distinct phases: discovery, preparation and leadership. The discovery phase

refers to those KSAs associated with understanding the objective prior to action.

Preparation represents project manager actions associated with developing expert

teams necessary to complete performance objectives. It epitomizes the mental,

physical and collaborative work conducted in preparation for action. Finally,

leadership refers to the KSAs demonstrated by the project manager in an effort to

manage the interdependent work associated with achieving team objectives. This

would include all action taken to resolve issues in conjunction with team members

whose expertise has been deemed necessary for the completion of task objectives.

In comparison, all team member behaviors can be viewed as responses to

solicitation. Before critical team member resources can be established, some degree

of social presence must exist. These experts must be perceived as available,

accountable and responsive before they can be relied upon to contribute to team

90
performance outcomes. Once presence is established, the ability of these resources to

manage expectations and exhibit competence, empathy, and facilitation is thought to

contribute to the successful completion of interdependent performance objectives.

Project Manager KSAs

Twenty project manager KSAs were thought to distinguish performance

outcomes within interdependent virtual project team contexts. Labels and definitions

(positive and negative) are as follows.

Table 3.4: Proposed Project Manager KSAs

Proposed KSAs (+) Positive Definition (-) Negative Definition

Pre-work (PW) Project manager takes action to
obtain relevant data or
information on a situation.
Work conducted to better
understand what needs to be
done. Examples include: testing
systems, checking the accuracy
of information, searching for
information online or within
corporate databases and
researching to clarify or add to
one’s existing knowledge.
Action is clearly not taken to
obtain information or data to
clarify work situations prior to
action. No work is conducted to
better understand what needs to
be done. Examples include:
jumping to action without
testing systems or checking
accuracy of information.

Planning (PL) Project manager develops a Action is clearly not taken to

strategy for addressing the
situation, goal or task at hand
prior to acting. Calls upon past
experiences to devise
alternatives. This would include
developing contingency plans,
devising options or alternatives
to action, brainstorming, and
proactive planning.
develop a strategy for
addressing the situation, goal or
task prior to action. The project
manager does not appear to call
upon past experiences as a
means to devise alternative.
Examples include: no
development of contingency
plans, devising of alternatives,
brainstorming or proactive
planning.

Partnership
Client Partnering (PAR1)
Subject acts to ensure that Project manager did not engage
clients share responsibility in the client consistently
planning and/or subsequent throughout the task; there was a
outcomes. Client is included in clear division of labor, and the

91
 the preparation and work
conducted to achieve objective.
Client plays an integral part in
achieving desired outcome.
Team Member Partnering Project manager ensures that
(PAR2) internal team members share
responsibility for planning and
subsequent outcomes. Internal
team members play an integral
or key part in achieving
interdependent task objectives.
Confidence
Self-Confidence (CON1) Project manager expresses a
belief in personal and
professional capabilities. He or
she is clearly comfortable in
their ability to resolve the
particular situation, task or
goal. Fearlessness is an
example.
Team Member Confidence Project manager expresses
(CON2) belief in team members’
capabilities. They believe and
rely upon team members to
ensure that team objectives are
achieved. Trust is an example.
Adaptability (ADP) Project manager demonstrates
the ability to maneuver
obstacles blocking or slowing
progress toward objective.
Example: Project manager’s
ability to determine and enact
workarounds necessary to
complete team performance
objectives.
Task Knowledge
Understanding Roles (TKW1) Project manager demonstrates a
clear understanding of job
responsibilities in comparison
to that of others within the
team. He or she clearly
distinguish: who is responsible
for what, what various groups
and team resources within the
organization contribute, and
92
client was not involved.
Example: “I involved the client
so they had no problems …,”
“The client did one part and I
the other …”
Project manager does nothing
to ensure that internal team
members share in the
responsibility for planning and
subsequent outcomes.
Example: Internal team
members are not asked to play
an integral role in the planning,
brainstorming and decision
making tasks related to the
completion of team
performance objectives.
Project manager is not
comfortable that his or her
skills and abilities can aide in
the achievement of
interdependent task
performance objectives.
Project manager clearly
expresses a belief that team
members are not capable of
helping achieve performance
objectives. There is a lack of
trust in team member
competencies.
Project manager demonstrates
an inability to maneuver
obstacles and blockades
impeding progress toward
performance objectives.
Example: Project manager is
stumped as to what to do next
and simply give up and the
situation remains unresolved.
Project manage is unclear as to
what they can contribute to the
completion of interdependent
team objectives. He or she is
unclear as to what others do or
what they can contribute to the
achievement of team
performance objectives.
Example: Role confusion

Understanding Objectives
(TKW2)
Understanding Action (TKW3)
Relationship Awareness
Determining Expertise (REL1)
Building Bonds (REL2)
Seeking Involvement
who does what.
Project manager demonstrates a
clear understanding of the goal,
task or situation. This would
include defining the problem or
issue requiring work. Example:
project manager defines,
categorizes or details the
situation in preparation for
action.
Project manager demonstrates
an understanding of work
processes required to achieve
team performance objectives.
This would include
understanding the behavioral
guidelines and organizational
processes mandated (e.g.: chain
of command, hierarchy,
reporting structure, escalation
guidelines …) and
organizational tools and
technologies used to facilitate
completion of situation, goal or
task.
Project manager demonstrates
the ability to find human
resources needed to facilitate
the completion of the situation,
task or goal. This could be
formal: based upon an
understanding of reporting
structure and/or team
composition or informal based
upon the development of
personal networks.
Project manager uses or
develops relationships which
facilitate the completion of
team performance objectives.
Example: Project manager
creates a champion within a
critical area, someone to serve
as a surrogate on his or her
behalf – a buddy to call upon.
93
Project manager is unclear as to
what needs to be accomplished.
He or she is unable to explain
the task, goal or situation to
fellow members whose
participation is instrumental to
the achievement of
performance objectives.
Project manager is unclear as to
the processes required to
achieve team performance
objectives. Resultantly, she or
he is unable to commandeer the
right resources, people and
tools necessary to achieve
interdependent task objectives.
Example: Project manager
expresses a lack of awareness
regarding the rules of
engagement or tools necessary
to perform.
Project manager demonstrates
an inability to find or discover
human resources (expertise)
necessary for the completion of
performance objectives.
Examples: names of critical
human resource remain
unknown, hindering progress
toward the achievement of task
objectives. Human resources
are not available or continue to
be protected. Project manager
does not have a name or direct
contact needed to complete
objectives.
Project manager clearly does
not develop or use relationships
which would prove
instrumental to the achievement
of team performance
objectives. Example: Project
manager is aware of critical
human resources to aid in the
achievement or performance
objectives but refuses or does
not assuage them.
Delegation/Escalation (SEK1)
Empowerment (SEK2)
Approval (SEK3)
Guidance (SEK4)
Managing Expectations (MEX)
Competence (CP)
Empathetic (EMP)
Project manager engages team
members deemed necessary to
the completion of performance
objectives. Delegates or
appoints others to complete
specific task components,
escalates situations when
required action exceeds
personal capabilities, and
entrusts task components to
others within the team.
Project manager bestows ability
on another to complete a
situation task or goal. Examples
include train-the trainer
sessions.
Project manager seeks approval
on strategies for tackling task
objectives prior to action.
Example: Project manager
ensures buy-in or acceptance of
approach by key stakeholders
and team members.
Project manager understands
personal limitations and seeks
advice from others more
knowledgeable or competent.
Project manager ensures that all
stakeholders are aware of the
range of possible outcomes.
Example: Project manager
discusses options and potential
outcomes with relevant
members.
Project manage clearly
possesses the talent, experience
and expertise necessary to aid in
the completion of team
performance objectives.
Project manager hears and
understands when others are
94
Project manager does not
entrust the completion of task
components to others within the
team. Instead, he or she
chooses to micromanage or
attempt to complete objectives
without the aide of others who
by himself or herself are clearly
more competent. Example:
trying to do everything.
Project manager withholds
information and procedures
which would allow others to
aid in the completion of team
performance objectives.
Project manager does not act to
confirm acceptance of plan by
key stakeholders and team
members. Example: assuming
that plan actions will be
accepted by others.
Project manager does not
understand personal limitations,
consequently does not seek
advice or guidance from others
whose contributions are key to
the achievement of
performance objectives.
Project manager does nothing to
control the expectations of key
stakeholders. He or she does not
discuss the range of potential
outcomes, leaving the
satisfaction regarding potential
completion of performance
objectives left to question.
Project manager clearly lacks
the talent, experience and
expertise necessary to aid in the
completion of team
performance objectives.
Example: Project manager is
unable to develop or lead the
team of experts needed to
complete the situation, task or
goal.
Project manager dismisses what
others share as irrelevant,
 attempting to share pertinent,
vital information. Examples
include listening and sympathy.
untrue or unimportant. He or
she is unable to discern what
contributions are critical to the
completion of interdependent
task objectives.

Facilitative (FAC)
Project manager is honest and
forthright in communicating all
information deemed necessary
to the completion of team
performance objectives.
Project manager limits the
information which is shared
with others, engaging in action
which undermines progress
toward resolution of situation,
task or goal. Example: not
being forthright … not telling
the entire truth but guarding the
information which is shared.

Pre-work captures project manager KSAs associated with ensuring that tasks

are adequately previewed and clearly defined prior to action (Furst et al., 2003).

Planning refers to their subsequent efforts to devise strategies which address the

situation, task or team goal at hand. Partnering is the vehicle by which project

managers foster collaborative work arrangements. This includes partnering with both

team members and client resources. Combined, these codes and categories (pre-work,

planning and partnering) represent the virtual teamwork KSAs necessary for the

processes of discovery and planning which are considered instrumental to effective

virtual teamwork (Bal & Foster, 2000; Kayworth & Leidner, 2000).

The remaining KSAs relate directly to leadership qualities exhibited by the

project manager. Confidence has been indirectly referred to as an important

leadership quality within virtual team research. Effective virtual team leaders are

often described as good “self-starters” who exhibit extraordinary self-discipline

(Warkentin et al., 1997; Jarvenpaa et al., 1998). In addition to self-confidence, this

researcher suspects that confidence in team member resources is equally important.

Among the strategic suggestions for improving virtual team performance proposed

95
by Stough et al. (2000) is team members’ ability to capitalize on existing experts.

This is reminiscent of the literature promoting the importance of trust within virtual

team contexts (Fuehrer & Ashkanasy, 1999; Jarvenpaa et al., 1998) and not only

suggests the importance of resources, but also the continuous emphasis on team

member interdependence as well.

Virtual teamwork requires members who are adaptable, who possess the

ability to perform without the benefit of team socialization. Virtual team members

must not only acculturate quickly to team norms but must also exhibit an overall

learning orientation which allows them to continuously develop and enhance existing

skill sets. These skills help promote much needed flexibility and allow members to

maneuver obstacles blocking or impeding progress toward the attainment of team

objectives (Furst et al., 2003; Johnson et al., 2001; Kayworth and Leidner, 2000;

Townsend and DeMarie, 1998; Warkentin et al., 1997; Wong and Burton, 2000).

Specifying team performance objectives is one of the primary leadership

roles necessary for ensuring the attainment of performance objectives (Bal & Foster,

2000). The project manager must possess the KSAs to first develop an understanding

of the objective before he or she can assess the expertise (e.g., team member

participants, information, etc.) and action required for goal attainment (Gorton and

Motowani, 1996; Townsend and DeMarie, 1998).

Lurey and Raisinghami (2001) found that individual roles and team

objectives must be explicit for virtual teams to be effective. It is not enough to

understand roles. Virtual teams must move to establish a team identity and an

awareness of mutual team member needs and expectations if teams are to be

96
effective. This suggests developing a team mission, vision, objectives and measures

of evaluation long before action takes place. These norms of behavior must be

agreed upon by the team and consistently called upon in order for teams to be

effective (Fuehrer, E. & Ashkanasy, N., 1999; Stough et al., 2000).

The most important competency for fostering team member interaction is the

ability to promote inclusion and participation among members – creating an overall

sense of “being there” or social presence. Unfortunately, much of the literature on

fostering virtual team relations limits study to comparisons of collocated and virtual

teams. When comparing these findings, face-to-face teams have generally

outperformed virtual ones with regard to effective information exchange and overall

team performance (Fuehrer & Ashkanasy, 1999; McGrath, 1984; Warkentin et al.,

1997).

Results from these studies have led researchers to suggest implementing

some form of face-to-face interaction within virtual environments. When direct

human interaction is not possible, communications technologies must be relied upon

to create a deeper sense of rapport. Virtual team members must, therefore, find

personal contacts and nurture beneficial relationships at a distance if they are to

perform effectively. Research findings suggest telephone and email are the most

beneficial technologies for building and maintaining these relationships (Pauleen &

Yoong, 2001).

Participation-seeking behaviors can be linked directly to project managers’

abilities to find and develop team member relationships. For instance, establishing of

formal or informal networks allows virtual team members to delegate, escalate,

97
empower, gain approval, and request guidance from others. Gorton and Motwani’s

(1996) co-operative model acknowledges project managers’ responsibility for overall

team performance but advises that all virtual team members set consensus schedules

and deadlines and emphasizes the importance of delegation to the completion of

interdependent task objectives. In addition, strategic recommendations for improving

virtual team performances suggest capitalizing on organizational expertise, receiving

approval and sponsorship from management, including co-operative delegation and

consulting, and empowering team members (Bal, J. & Foster, P., 2000; Furst, S. et

al.; 2003; Gorton, I. & Motowani, S., 1996; and Stough et al., 2000).

Proposed Team Member KSAs

Three KSAs were thought to align exclusively with team member

contributions to effective virtual performance outcomes: availability, accountability

and responsiveness. For the purpose of discussion these abilities are grouped under

the guise of presence or social presence, which references the extent to which

communications media allows interdependent team members to experience each

other as being psychologically close or present (Fulk & Boyd, 1991). Before the

remaining proposed team member KSAs (managing expectations, competence,

empathy and facilitation) can be assessed, expert resources must be available. Once

availability is established, these experts must be willing and able to respond to

solicitation. They must openly commit to the team and its performance objectives.

Only once this degree of presence is established can we begin to assess the impact of

team member contributions.

98
Table 3.5: Proposed Team Member KSAs
Proposed KSAs
Presence
PRE1 – Available
PRE2 – Accountable
PRE3 – Responsive
Managing Expectations (MEX)
Know-How (CP)
Empathetic (EMP)
(+) Positive Definition
Team member resources
demonstrate the ability to be
contacted or reached to aid in
problem resolution or
completion of a task, goal or
objective.
Team member resources are
perceived as committed and
dedicated to the completion of
interdependent task objectives.
Team member resources are
perceived as prompt in reacting
to or following-up on needs or
requests posed by project
manager or virtual project team
members. Team member has a
proper sense of urgency.
Team member resources ensure
that all stakeholders are aware
of the range of possible
outcomes. Example: project
manager discusses options and
potential outcomes with
relevant members.
Team member resources clearly
possess the talent, experience
and expertise necessary to aid in
the completion of team
performance objectives.
Team member resources hear
and understand when others are
attempting to share pertinent,
vital information. Examples
include listening and sympathy.
99
(-) Negative Definition
Project manager efforts to
contact critical team member
resources are in vain. Team
member resources cannot be
contacted or reached to aid in
the completion of performance
objectives.
Team member resources are not
perceived by project manager as
committed and dedicated to the
completion of interdependent
task objectives. They clearly do
not accept responsibility for
addressing requests posed by
project manager or other virtual
project team members.
Team member resources delay
or do not respond to requests
made by project manager or
virtual team members. There is
an apparent lack of urgency
associated with answering the
call for assistance.
Team member resources do
nothing to control the
expectations of key
stakeholders. They do not
discuss the range of potential
outcomes, leaving the
satisfaction regarding potential
completion of performance
objectives left to question.
Team member resources clearly
lack the talent, experience and
expertise necessary to aid in the
completion of team
performance objectives.
Example: project manager is
unable to develop or lead the
team of experts needed to
complete the situation, task or
goal.
Team member resources
dismiss what others share as
irrelevant, untrue or
unimportant. They are unable to
discern what contributions are
critical to the completion of
interdependent task objectives.
Facilitative (FAC) Team member resources are
honest & forthright in
communicating all information
deemed necessary to the
completion or team
performance objectives.
Team member resources limit
the information which is shared
with others, engaging in action
which undermines progress
toward resolution of situation,
task or goal. Example: not
being forthright … not telling
the entire truth but guarding the
information which is shared.

Data Analysis
Data analysis was conducted using a three-phased approach. Phase one,

located in Appendix D, establishes the performance criteria by which virtual project

teams are dubbed effective. Phase two conducts a narrative analysis of all 54 code

items to determine those project manager and team member KSAs distinguishing

virtual project team performance outcomes. Finally, phase three enlists discriminate

analysis to determine those code items which best predict differences in virtual

project team performance outcomes as perceived by project managers within virtual

teams.

Phase I: Aspects of Performance

A total of 145 narratives (effective n=77 and ineffective n=66) were coded in

accordance with Hackman’s (1987, 1990) model of group effectiveness to determine

those aspects of performance associated with effective virtual project team outcomes.

A Mann-Whitney U was then used to conduct a non-parametric analysis of eight

proposed aspects of performance: delivering objectives, teamwork, individual

control, turnaround, work customization, timeliness, fulfillment and closure

(Appendix D).

100
 Results from this analysis allowed for the determination of attributes associated

with perceived effectiveness. Virtual project teams were dubbed effective when their

members:

1. delivered on objectives
2. experienced group cohesion
3. met deadlines
4. possessed some level of control over outcomes
5. customized their work environments
6. derived pleasure from their activity
7. experienced the team objective from beginning to end

Phase II: Team Member KSAs

Using Mann-Whitney U statistical comparisons, differences in perceived

effectiveness were then examined to determine what proposed project manager and

team member KSAs significantly contributed to team performance outcomes as

perceived by project managers within virtual teams. Mann-Whitney U non-

parametric comparison was used because the data did not fall into a normal

distribution.

Phase III: Predictors of Outcome

Using step-wise discriminate analysis, differences in virtual project team

outcomes were examined to determine those project manager and team member

KSAs contributing most to differences in performance outcomes. This approach

allowed for the development of a discrete list of behaviors contributing to differences

between success and failure among virtual project teams.

101
 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS

This chapter highlights results from research questions one and two as

described in Chapter 2. Hackman’s model of group effectiveness is the foundation by

which virtual team effectiveness is defined. A theoretically informed coding scheme,

presented in Chapter 3, was used to assess virtual teamwork KSAs thought to

distinguish task interdependent performance outcomes. Forty project manager and

fourteen team member competencies were evaluated in an effort to determine those

contributing to differences in virtual team performance as perceived by their project

managers. Finally, those items found to distinguish differences in virtual team

performance were further analyzed to pinpoint those with the greatest impact on

outcome distinctions.

Research questions 1a and 1b look at the competencies of individual

members of virtual project teams. The intent here is to determine teamwork

knowledge, skills and abilities associated with differences in virtual project team

outcomes as perceived by project managers. Differences in virtual project team

outcomes were assessed to determine those project manager and team member

characteristics associated with differences in outcome. Research question 1a

evaluates forty derived project manager KSAs to determine those leader capabilities

which differentiate team performance outcomes. Question 1b looks at fourteen team

member characteristics to determine those individual contributions to differences in

overall virtual team performance.

102
 RQ1a: What project manager KSAs distinguish effective from ineffective

outcomes as perceived by project managers within virtual teams?

RQ1b: What team member KSAs distinguish effective from ineffective

outcomes as perceived by project managers within virtual teams?

Research question two looks specifically at those project manager and team

member KSAs differentiating virtual project team performance outcomes (i.e.,

findings from questions 1a and 1b). The intent here is to determine the optimal KSAs

distinguishing effective from ineffective virtual team performance outcomes.

RQ2: Which project manager and team member KSAs are best predictors of

outcomes as perceived by project managers within virtual teams?

The following sections outline the data analysis procedures for each of the

above questions and highlight key findings.

RQ1a: Virtual Project Manager Knowledge, Skills and

Abilities (KSAs) Distinguishing Performance Outcomes
Virtual team membership is largely fluid and fluctuates in accordance with

the need to incorporate expertise deemed essential to the completion of team

objectives (Furst et al., 2003). Consequently, a primary role of the project manager is

to assemble and lead expert teams. Research question 1a has been designed to assess

those project manager KSAs related to discovery and leadership and the acquisition

103
of human resources deemed critical to the achievement of virtual team performance

objectives.

A total of 145 narratives, 77 effective and 68 ineffective, were coded in

accordance with the codebook in Appendix B. A Mann-Whitney U was then used to

conduct a non-parametric analysis of the forty proposed project manager KSAs

thought to distinguish virtual team performance outcomes. Table 4.1.1 illustrates the

impact that these KSAs had on differences in virtual project team performance

outcomes.

Table 4.1.1: Descriptive Statistics for the Project Manager Sample and Sub-samples

and Mann-Whitney Ua Comparison between Effective and Ineffective Virtual Project

Teams

Overall Effective Ineffective

(n=145) (n=77) (n=68)
Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Ub
Pre-work
(+) Positive 0.54 0.50 0.62 0.49 0.46 0.50 0.04 *
(--) Negative 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.12 0.93
Planning
(+) Positive 0.59 0.49 0.73 0.45 0.44 0.50 0.00 **
(--) Negative 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.13
Client Partnering
(+) Positive 0.24 0.43 0.40 0.49 0.06 0.24 0.00 **
(--) Negative 0.03 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.24 0.03 *
Team Partnering
(+) Positive 0.30 0.46 0.30 0.46 0.31 0.47 0.90
(--) Negative 0.02 0.14 0.01 0.11 0.03 0.17 0.49
Self-confidence
(+) Positive 0.26 0.44 0.36 0.48 0.13 0.34 0.00 **
(--) Negative 0.17 0.37 0.06 0.25 0.28 0.45 0.00 **
Resource confidence
(+) Positive 0.16 0.37 0.14 0.35 0.18 0.38 0.58
(--) Negative 0.11 0.31 0.05 0.22 0.18 0.38 0.02 *
Adaptability
(+) Positive 0.49 0.50 0.49 0.50 0.49 0.50 0.92
(--) Negative 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

104
 Understanding Roles
(+) Positive 0.35 0.48 0.32 0.47 0.38 0.49 0.47
(--) Negative 0.03 0.16 0.03 0.16 0.03 0.17 0.90
Understanding
Objectives
(+) Positive 0.61 0.49 0.69 0.47 0.53 0.50 0.05 *
(--) Negative 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.12 0.93
Understanding Action
(+) Positive 0.68 0.47 0.71 0.46 0.66 0.49 0.30
(--) Negative 0.08 0.27 0.03 0.16 0.13 0.34 0.02 *
Resource
Determination
(+) Positive 0.17 0.37 0.14 0.35 0.19 0.40 0.44
(--) Negative 0.19 0.40 0.04 0.20 0.37 0.49 0.00 **
Developing/using
Bonds
(+) Positive 0.17 0.37 0.19 0.40 0.13 0.34 0.31
(--) Negative 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.13
Delegation/Escalation
(+) Positive 0.32 0.47 0.18 0.36 0.47 0.50 0.00 **
(--) Negative 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.29
Empowerment
(+) Positive 0.08 0.28 0.12 0.32 0.04 0.21 0.11
(--) Negative 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Seeking Approval
(+) Positive 0.12 0.32 0.17 0.38 0.06 0.24 0.04 *
(--) Negative 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Seeking Guidance
(+) Positive 0.37 0.48 0.27 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.01 **
(--) Negative 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Managing
Expectations
(+) Positive 0.23 0.43 0.23 0.43 0.24 0.43 0.98
(--) Negative 0.03 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.26 0.02 *
Competence
(+) Positive 0.14 0.35 0.26 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 **
(--) Negative 0.06 0.23 0.04 0.20 0.07 0.26 0.37
Empathy
(+) Positive 0.17 0.37 0.09 0.30 0.25 0.44 0.01 **
(--) Negative 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.29
Facilitation
(+) Positive 0.24 0.43 0.31 0.47 0.16 0.37 0.04 *
(--) Negative 0.03 0.18 0.03 0.16 0.04 0.21 0.55

Note:

An analysis of critical incident interview narratives allowed for the discovery

of seventeen project manager KSAs associated with differences in virtual project

105
team performance outcomes (p <0.10). The following section discusses these

findings along with their resulting significance levels.

Positive occurrences of project manager KSAs proving highly significant (p

≤ 0.01) were planning, client partnering, self-confidence, delegation/escalation,

seeking guidance, competence, and empathy. Managers exhibiting these KSAs

expressed feelings associated with overall team effectiveness. Project managers’

abilities to conduct research prior to action, understand objectives, seek approval

from key stakeholders, and invoke actions which facilitated the completion of team

tasks were also associated with differences in perceived performance outcomes (p

<.05).

Nine of the proposed twenty positive project manager behaviors (team

member partnering, resource confidence, adaptability, understanding roles and action,

resource determination, developing and using bonds, empowerment, and managing

expectations) were inconsequential to differences in perceived outcomes. Hence,

exhibiting these KSAs was not associated with project manager feelings of overall

team effectiveness. This is not to say that these KSAs were not critical to virtual

work performance; rather, they were simply not performance distinguishers. The

display of these KSAs was inconsequential with regard to performance outcomes

because they existed in both or neither scenarios.

Situations where the display of KSAs was present in both effective and

ineffective team performance situations might be considered norms of performance

versus distinguishers. Adaptability, for example, was coded within a majority of the

narratives. As a result, project manager adaptability was not associated with

106
differences in virtual project team performance outcomes. Instead, it proved vital to

virtual teamwork regardless of outcome.

Negative occurrences of project manager KSAs proving highly significant (p

≤ 0.01) were lack of self-confidence and resource anonymity. Managers exhibiting

lack of self confidence and an inability to ascertain resources experienced feelings of

overall team ineffectiveness. A project manager’s inabilities to partner with the client,

depend upon critical resources, understand necessary action, and manage

expectations were also associated with perceived differences in virtual team

performance outcomes (p <.05).

Fourteen of the projected negative project manager behaviors were

inconsequential to perceived outcome differences. Lack of pre-work, planning, team

member partnering, adaptability, understanding roles and objectives,

developing/using bonds, delegation/escalation, empowerment, seeking approval and

guidance, competence, empathy and facilitation were not found to distinguish

effective from ineffective performance as perceived by project managers with virtual

teams. The negative display of these project manager KSAs did not contribute to

distinctions between effective and ineffective virtual team performance outcomes.

More aptly put, the inability to display these project manager competencies either

existed in both or neither outcomes (effective and ineffective) thereby leading to the

conclusion that those KSAs were not distinguishing.

107
 RQ1b: Virtual Team Member Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
(KSAs) Distinguishing Performance Outcomes
Virtual project teams are collectivities of individuals possessing the necessary

talent, experience and expertise to complete team performance objectives (Furst et al.,

2003). Virtual team performance is thus not only dependent upon the KSAs

exhibited by project managers, but also the team members upon whom they rely.

This fact makes team member presence, the extent to which members experience

each other as being psychologically close, and capabilities critical to overall virtual

project team performance outcomes. Research question 1b has been designed to

assess the impact that team member KSAs have on virtual team performance

outcomes.

A total of 145 narratives, 77 effective and 68 ineffective, were coded in

accordance with the codebook discussed in Chapter 3. A Mann-Whitney U was then

used to conduct a non-parametric analysis of fourteen proposed team member KSAs

thought to contribute to distinctions in virtual team performance outcomes. Table

4.1.2 illustrates the impact that these proposed KSAs had on perceived effectiveness

within virtual project teams.

Table 4.1.1: Descriptive Statistics for the Team Member Sample and Sub-samples

and Mann-Whitney Ua Comparison between Effective and Ineffective Virtual Project

Teams

Overall Effective Ineffective

(n=145) (n=77) (n=68)
Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Ub

Managing Expectations
(+) Positive 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

108
 (--) Negative 0.03 0.16 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.21 0.26
Competence
(+) Positive 0.09 0.29 0.12 0.32 0.06 0.24 0.22
(--) Negative 0.22 0.42 0.12 0.32 0.34 0.48 0.00 **
Empathy
(+) Positive 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.12 0.93
(--) Negative 0.13 0.34 0.01 0.11 0.26 0.44 0.00 **
Facilitation
(+) Positive 0.21 0.41 0.18 0.39 0.25 0.44 0.32
(--) Negative 0.21 0.41 0.04 0.20 0.40 0.49 0.00 **
Availability
(+) Positive 0.03 0.18 0.05 0.22 0.01 0.12 0.22
(--) Negative 0.19 0.39 0.05 0.22 0.34 0.48 0.00 **
Accountability
(+) Positive 0.05 0.22 0.05 0.22 0.04 0.21 0.83
(--) Negative 0.21 0.41 0.04 0.20 0.40 0.49 0.00 **
Responsiveness
(+) Positive 0.08 0.28 0.10 0.31 0.06 0.24 0.33
(--) Negative 0.26 0.44 0.08 0.27 0.47 0.50 0.00 **

Note:
Non-parametric
a
comparisons.

An analysis of critical incident narratives allowed for the discovery of six

team member KSAs associated with differences in virtual project team performance

outcomes (p <0.10). The following section discusses relevant findings and resulting

significance levels.

None of the proposed positive occurrences of team member KSAs were

found to significantly distinguish perceived virtual team outcomes. Although team

members were coded for availability, competence, facilitation, responsiveness,

accountability, empathy and managing expectations, the existence of these KSAs

was not associated with differences in team performance. Only negative occurrences

of team member behavior proved significant.

109
 Six of the seven negative KSAs thought to distinguish virtual team performance

outcomes proved highly significant (p <.001). Lack of competence, empathy,

facilitation, availability, accountability, and responsiveness on the part of team

members were associated with project managers’ perceptions of team performance

outcomes. In other words, virtual teamwork efforts proved ineffective when team

members were perceived as:

1.) Not socially present (available, accountable, and responsive).

2.) Lacking the necessary, talent, experience and expertise.

3.) Showing little regard for others’ feelings, situations and motives.

4.) Impeding others’ progress toward resolving issues.

Next, Research Question two evaluates the impact of project manager and team

member contributions to performance outcomes. It looks at all KSAs found to

significantly effect performance outcomes and pinpoints those with the greatest

impact upon differences in outcomes as perceived by project managers within virtual

teams. These findings suggest that research and training which focuses on specific

virtual teamwork competencies (e.g., responsiveness, resource determination, client

partnering, etc.) is warranted.

RQ2: Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs) as Outcome

Predictors

By definition, members of virtual project teams must interact via a

combination of telecommunication and information technologies if they are to

110
accomplish interdependent task objectives within a specific timeframe. Question two

is designed to determine which of those virtual teamwork KSAs best contribute to

differences in performance outcomes.

Past research has approached the study of virtual team effectiveness by

placing emphasis on contributions made by leaders within virtual teams. In the

opinion of this researcher, this approach does not address critical contributions made

by the many other members within virtual teams. Determining which member KSAs

are instrumental to differences in virtual team performance will allow us to first

determine if the emphasis placed on project manager behaviors is adequate, and

secondly, it will indicate those individual competencies critical to differences in

outcomes.

Questions 1a and 1b yielded 23 project manager and team member

competencies, both positive and negative, associated (p ≤ 0.05) with differences in

virtual project team performance outcomes. Question 2 uses these findings to

determine those virtual teamwork competencies which best differentiate effective

from ineffective performance outcomes.

The purpose of this question was to determine which of the 23 significant

project manager and team member KSAs best discriminate between KSAs favoring

effective versus ineffective virtual team performance. The use of stepwise

discriminate analysis is an attempt to determine the linear composite of code items

that discriminate between groups. This method of analysis was performed to

determine the most parsimonious set of virtual project team competencies

distinguishing performance outcomes. This technique allowed for each significant

111
code item (Table 4.2) to be evaluated and reviewed sequentially. Each step was

determined by the KSA that contributed most to the discrimination between effective

and ineffective virtual team performance. Once determined, that KSA was included

in the model and the process repeated until no significant distinguishers remained.

Table 4.2: List of Significant Project Manager and Team Member KSAs

Project Manager Team Member

(+) Project Manager- Understanding Objectives (-) Team Member - Competence
(+) Project Manager - Self-Confidence (-) Team Member – Empathy
(+) Project Manager - Seeking Guidance (-) Team Member – Facilitation
(+) Project Manager - Seeking Approval (-) Team Member – Availability
(+) Project Manager - Pre-work (-) Team Member - Accountability
(+) Project Manager - Planning (-) Team Member - Responsiveness
(+) Project Manager - Facilitation
(+) Project Manager - Empathy
(+) Project Manager - Competence
(+) Project Manager - Client Partnering
(+) Project Manager - Delegation/Escalation
(-) Project Manager - Resource Anonymity
(-) Project Manager - Understanding Action
(-) Project Manager - Team Member Confidence
(-) Project Manager - Self-Confidence
(-) Project Manager - Managing Expectations
(-) Project Manager - Client Partnering

Significance p≤ 0.05

112
 The outcome of this analysis, a function by which outcomes are predicted

with a high correlation, was then used to determine those KSAs that best represented

and predicted outcomes based upon both positive and negative occurrences of project

manager and team member KSAs.

Results of stepwise discriminate analysis of significant project manager and

team member KSAs are presented in table 4.3. The discriminate function had a

canonical correlation coefficient of 0.716, and Wilks’ lambda = .487, p = .000.

Table 4.3: Results of Stepwise Discriminate Function Analysis of Significant Project

Manager and Team Member KSAs Comparing Effective and Ineffective Virtual

Project Team Performance

Wilks' Probability
Significant Variable F Lambda < Lambda
- Team Member Responsiveness 35.428 0.801 0.000
+ Project Manager Client Partnering 27.385 0.667 0.000
- Project Manager Resource Anonymity 29.845 0.591 0.000
- Team Member Facilitation 34.556 0.549 0.000
- Project Manager Self-Confidence 10.779 0.514 0.000
+ Project Manager Know-how 23.531 0.487 0.000

Significance p <.05

Six of the 23 significant project manager and team member KSAs tested were found

to discriminate between effective and ineffective virtual team performance as

perceived by project managers within those teams. The six discriminating variables

in order of importance were: 1.) team member responsiveness, 2.) project manager

client partnering, 3.) project manager resource determination, 4.) team member

facilitation, 5.) project manager self-confidence, and 6.) project manager competence

(Table 4.3).

113
 Effective virtual project teams were composed of team members who were both

responsive and facilitative. They were led by project managers with the ability to

partner with clients, uncover and commandeer expert resources, and exhibit the

necessary talent, experience and expertise to assemble and manage effective virtual

project teams. The project manager and team member KSAs that were not found to

discriminate were:

• Project manager abilities to understand performance objectives, possess

confidence, seek guidance, approval and delegation/escalation, conduct pre-

work and planning activities, facilitate team member performance, and

display empathy.

• Project manager inabilities to understand necessary action steps, display

confidence in team members, and manage expectations and client partner

relations.

• Team member inabilities to display competence and empathy, and be

available and accountable.

Overall the classification of both effective and ineffective virtual team

performances using stepwise discriminate analysis was correct 85.5% of the time.

Effective virtual project team performance was correctly classified 89.6% of the time.

Ineffective virtual project team performance was correctly classified 80.9% of the

time (Table 4.4).

114
Table 4.4: Results of Classification of Group Membership from Selected KSAs of

Effective and Ineffective Virtual Project Team Performance

Effective Ineffective
Actual Group No. Cases Performance Performance
Effective Virtual Team
Performance 77 69 (89.6%) 8 (10.4%)
Ineffective Virtual Team
Performance 68 13 (19.1%) 55 (80.9%)

Percent of cases correctly classified:

85.5%

Team member responsiveness was the best determiner in predicting effective and

ineffective virtual team performance based upon the 23 significant project manager

and team member KSAs shown in Table 4.2.

• Team member responsiveness in effective as compared to ineffective virtual

project teams had an F value of 35.428 with a probability >F or .0000 and a

Wilks’ lambda of .081. The probability < lambda of .000 was significant at p

<.001.

Project managers spent more time partnering with clients in effective virtual team

outcomes than in ineffective ones

• The comparison of project managers’ use of client partnering in effective

situations versus ineffective ones yielded an F value of 27.385 and a

probability >F of .000 with a Wilks’ lambda of .667, which is significant at

p<.001.

115
Project managers’ inability to find and commandeer critical experts resulted in

perceived ineffectiveness on the part of project managers within virtual teams.

• Differences in abilities of project managers to commandeer expertise

necessary to complete a team’s performance objectives was found to be a

discriminating factor between effective and ineffective virtual project team

performance with an F value of 29.845 and a probability >F of .000 with a

Wilks’ lambda of .591.

Team members’ display of honesty and forthrightness in communicating information

and directing co-members through formal and informal channels was instrumental to

the resolution of problems and virtual team performance a whole.

• Team members’ abilities to facilitate the attainment of performance

objectives was found to be a discriminating factor with an F value of 34.556

and a probability >F of .000, with a Wilks’ lambda of .549.

Virtual team effectiveness was indicative of situations where project managers

displayed confidence and the necessary talent, experience, and expertise to

adequately fulfill their roles.

• Project manager self-confidence and competence (know-how) were

discriminating factors between perceived effective and ineffective virtual

team performance. Project manager self-confidence had an F value of 10.779

and a probability >F of .000, with a Wilks’ lambda of .514 while know-how

had an F value of 23.531, probability >F of .000 and a Wilks’ lambda of .487.

116
 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

The results of the present study indicate that virtual teamwork KSAs

supporting successful project team performances fall into three conceptual categories:

discovery & preparation, leadership, and potency. This study identifies 21 specific

project manager and team member behaviors, positive and negative, that fall into

these categories. The associated KSAs significantly distinguish effective from

ineffective virtual project team performances. The present findings support and

contribute to past research and theory on effective virtual teamwork. In addition,

they further our empirical and theoretical understanding of virtual teaming and have

implications for the development of individual member competencies and virtual

teamwork processes.

Three broad behavioral competencies were attributed to differences in virtual

project team performance outcomes. They were discovery and preparation,

leadership and team potency. Discovery and preparation behaviors refer to those

project manager KSAs (pre-work, planning, understanding objectives and

understanding action) associated with exerting sufficient effort and establishing clear

and engaging directions. Leadership behaviors refer to project manager KSAs

(client partnering, managing expectations, delegating, escalating, seeking approval

and guidance, and determining team member resources) deemed central to building

expert teams. And finally, team potency behaviors refer to those project manager and

team member KSAs (confidence, competence, empathy, facilitation, and social

presence) associated with the teams’ overall belief in their ability to perform.

117
 The research method used in this study to identify virtual teamwork KSAs

was primarily inductive. This approach enabled an in-depth exploration of KSAs

associated with differences in virtual team performance outcomes. Previous research

on effective virtual teamwork has relied heavily on findings relating to virtual team

leadership (Hart and McLeod, 2003; Kayworth and Leidner, 2002). The KSAs

identified within this study were allowed to emerge by assessing the contributions

made by both project managers and the team members upon whom they rely.

This chapter is divided into five sections. First, a summary of findings is

presented. Second, KSAs required for successful virtual teamwork are discussed.

Third, virtual teamwork processes associated with the successful completion of

interdependent objectives are presented. Fourth, individual member KSAs

distinguishing performance outcomes are established. Finally, future research

implications are presented.

Summary of Findings
This study found that project managers and team members are perceived to

exhibit specific KSAs in their efforts to complete team performance objectives.

These KSAs were associated with exerting sufficient effort, establishing clear and

engaging directions, employing appropriate team-building strategies,

commandeering adequate resources, and creating expert teams (Hackman, 1986).

Together these ingredients represent the processes by which project managers and

their team members tackle interdependent performance objectives. Effective virtual

team performances were associated with a mix of both project manager and team

118
member KSAs, while ineffective team performances were attributed largely to

inadequate team member performances.

Research question 1A (What project manager KSAs distinguish effective

from ineffective outcomes as perceived by project managers within virtual teams?)

concludes that project manager KSAs presented in Table 5.1 were associated with

differences in virtual project team outcomes. The positive display of KSAs was

associated with virtual project team successes. The negative display of KSAs was

associated with virtual project team failures.

Table 5.1: Project Manager KSAs Associated with Differences in Virtual Project

Team Performance Outcomes.

Project Manager (PM) KSAs positive negative

Pre-work √
Planning √
Client Partnering √ √
Self-confidence √ √
Resource confidence √
Understanding objectives √
Understanding action √
Team Member Resource
Determination √
Delegation/escalation √
Seeking approval √
Seeking guidance √
Managing Expectations √
Competence √
Empathy √
Facilitation √

Successful virtual project teams contained project managers with the ability

to conduct critical research prior to action; develop strategies for proactively

addressing objectives; capitalize on client relationships to ensure the sharing of

119
responsibility; believe in personal capabilities; demonstrate a clear understanding of

interdependent goals; seek involvement from others in the form of delegation,

acceptance, and guidance; exhibit the talent, experience and expertise necessary to

complete performance objectives; show understanding and regard for others’

concerns; and direct concerns through the proper channels as a means to help resolve

issues.

Unsuccessful virtual project teams were associated with project managers’

inabilities to partner with clients in an effort to ensure shared responsibility, lack of

belief in personal capabilities, mistrust of team member resources critical to the

completion of performance objectives, confusion regarding virtual teamwork

processes, inability to discover critical expert resources, and neglect in assuring that

stakeholders were aware of all possible outcomes.

Research question 1B (What team member KSAs distinguish effective from

ineffective outcomes as perceived by project managers within virtual teams?) found

that only negative occurrences of team member KSAs (Table 5.2) were attributable

to differences in virtual project team performance outcomes. This negative display of

team member KSAs was associated with virtual project team failures.

Table 5.2: Team Member KSAs Associated with Differences in Virtual Project Team

Performance Outcomes.

Team Member (TM) KSAs positive Negative

Competence √
Empathy √
Facilitation √
Availability √

120
 Responsiveness √

None of the proposed positive team member KSAs was associated with

successful outcomes as perceived by project managers within virtual teams. Instead,

team member behaviors were only attributable to virtual project team failures. Team

members’ inabilities to exhibit the talent, experience, and expertise necessary to

complete performance objectives; understand others’ feelings, situations, or motives;

direct the resolution of concerns to critical expert resources; and exhibit an

expectable degree of social presence were all associated with virtual project team

failure to complete performance objectives.

Fundamental Attribution Error (Heider, 1958; Jones & Harris; 1967; Kelly,

1967; Ross, 1977) suggests that people, specifically those of Western culture, tend to

over-emphasize dispositional factors and under-emphasize situational ones. In other

words, people often blame failure to perform on others’ lack of knowledge, skills and

ability as opposed to contextual and/or conditional factors which might hinder

performance. An over-emphasis of team members’ negative traits, abilities, and

motives discounts the impact that external forces (scarce resources, poor information

systems, social and environmental factors, etc.) have on their abilities to exhibit

competence, social presence, facilitation, and empathy. At the same time, an

overemphasis on situational factors discounts the importance of researching

individual competencies contributing to differences in virtual team outcomes.

Although one might tend to dismiss these findings as project managers’ attempts to

simply blame others and in doing so avoid recrimination, their attributions are the

result of very real experiences and beliefs. Thus, the discussion of findings will focus

121
on those perceptions as a means to better understand the virtual teamwork KSAs

which must be exhibited to ensure successful virtual project team performances.

Finally, result from research question two (Which project manager and team

member KSAs are best predictors of outcomes as perceived by project managers

within virtual teams?) pinpoints six KSAs which account for significant differences

between effective and ineffective virtual project team performances. The negative

display of team member responsiveness, ability to partner with clients, inability to

determine key resources, lack of perceived team member facilitation, lack of project

manager self-confidence, and positive display of project manager competence

predicted 85.5% of the virtual project team outcomes successfully.

Table 5.3: Virtual Project Team KSAs Associated with Differences in Virtual Project

Team Performance Outcomes

Virtual Project Team KSAs Positive Negative

1. TM – Responsiveness √
2. PM - Client Partnering √
3. PM - Resource Determination √
4. TM – Facilitation √
5. PM - Self-Confidence √
6. PM – Competence √

In order of importance, team members’ perceived unresponsiveness was the

most critical KSA attributed to differences in virtual project team performance.

Project managers’ abilities to partner with clients to ensure shared responsibility

followed. Next, project managers’ inability to find and enlist expert resources

deemed critical to the completion of interdependent task performance objectives

followed. Fourth was team members’ inability or unwillingness to channel tasks and

122
information to the proper support resources. Fifth was project managers’ lack of self-

confidence. The sixth and final KSA distinguishing virtual project team performance

outcomes was project managers’ perceived talent, experience and expertise.

Now that the significant project manager and team member KSAs have been

reviewed, the remainder of this chapter will be dedicated to: 1.) discussing KSAs

required for successful virtual teamwork, and 2.) assessing the processes associated

with effective performance.

Study Findings as They Relate to Proposed Virtual Teamwork

KSAs

As discussed in Chapter three, the codebook development process revealed

23 themes or KSAs thought to differentiate virtual project team successes from

failures. These themes included both project manager and team member behaviors.

Next, each theme was grouped in accordance with interpersonal and self-

management behaviors. Significant project manager and team member KSAs (Table

5.1 and 5.2) were further grouped using four of the five teamwork sub-categories

(collaborative problem solving; communications; goal setting and performance

management; and planning and task coordination ) proposed by Stevens and

Campion (1994). No extant research on conflict resolution within virtual teams was

discovered. Therefore, project manager and team member behaviors associated with

the recognition and resolution of various forms of virtual team conflict were not

included.

Results of this study supported the need for interpersonal and self-

management KSAs by both project managers and their team members. Project

123
managers leading effective virtual teams exhibited four of five general teamwork

behaviors (collaborative problem solving; communications; goal setting and

performance management; and planning and task coordination). Team members with

effective virtual project teams, however, were not seen as exhibiting any of the five

general teamwork behaviors proposed by Stevens and Campion (1994). See

Appendix D.

Although successful virtual project team performances were only attributable

to the positive occurrences of project manager behaviors, negative occurrences of

both project manager and team member behaviors were equally telling.

Project managers within ineffective virtual teams exhibited an inability to

partner with clients and find expert resources necessary for collaborative problem

solving. The inability to determine team member resources was also associated with

poor communications, as was the lack of effort afforded to managing client

expectations. Goal setting and performance management was inhibited by project

managers’ lack of confidence in self and other members of the team. Finally, project

managers’ inability to understand the virtual teamwork processes required to

complete interdependent performance objectives hindered virtual project team

success.

Team members within ineffective virtual project teams were perceived as

neither available, accountable, nor responsive. The communicative processes enlisted

by critical resources were perceived as lacking empathy. Personal skills or

competencies were described by project managers as lacking the necessary talent,

experience and expertise for the timely delivery of team objectives. Finally, critical

124
team member resources were thought to be generally uncooperative in planning and

coordinating the completion of interdependent tasks.

The following section provides examples of project manager and team

member behaviors associated with differences in virtual project team performance

outcomes. First, project manager and team member KSAs associated with disparities

in communications and collaborative problem solving are presented. Second, project

manager and team member KSAs associated with the development and monitoring

of goals, planning, and task coordination are expounded. Finally, a revised version of

Stevens and Campion’s (1994) work on KSAs required for teamwork is presented to

help understand the virtual member behaviors necessary for successful virtual project

team performances.

Absence of Positive Team Member Behaviors within

Successful Virtual Teams
None of the proposed team member KSAs (managing expectations,

competence, empathy, facilitation, availability, accountability, and responsiveness)

was attributed to the successful completion of virtual team performance objectives.

Project managers, however, did attribute the negative displays of team member

behavior to virtual project team failures. Team members lack of competence,

empathy, facilitation, availability, accountability, and responsiveness were all

associated with failure to complete virtual project team performance objectives.

There are several possible explanations for these findings.

Positive displays of competence, empathy, facilitation, availability,

accountability, and responsiveness on the part or team members were either

perceived by project managers as: 1.) core or foundational competencies, 2.) having

125
little or no impact on performance outcomes, or 3.) were not discernable based upon

the methodology enlisted. One possible explanation is that positive displays of team

member behaviors were assumed. In other words, project managers generally trusted

members within their team. There could have been a presumption of trust on the part

of project managers regardless of outcome. Only in situations where this trust was

became notably distinguishable.

Another possibility is that the team member behaviors as described within the

study simply did not distinguish performance outcomes. If true, additional research is

needed to further delineate the potential dispositional team member attributes which

distinguish virtual project team performance outcomes. This might be accomplished

by conducting a similar study based upon team member narratives. Finally, sole

reliance on project manager perceptions of dispositional factors associated with

performance outcomes may have resulted in negative team member attributions.

Additional study into the situational factors impact project manager and team

member performances may help illuminate the positive behaviors enlisted by team

members in an effort to completed interdependent task objectives.

Project Manager and Team Member KSAs Required for

Successful Virtual Teamwork

The following sections discuss project manager and team member

interpersonal and self-management KSAs associated with differences in virtual

project team performance outcomes. Discussion has been divided into four sections

in accordance with Stevens and Campion’s (1994) proposed teamwork requirements.

Collaborative Problem Solving discusses those project manager and team member

126
behaviors associated with identifying situations requiring participative problems

solving and implementing the appropriate degree of interdependence. The

Communications section highlights those findings which allow for open and

supportive communications among members. Goal Setting and Performance

Management pinpoints those project manager and team member KSAs associated

with establishing goals and monitoring and evaluating team member performances.

Finally, Planning and Task Coordination suggests virtual teamwork behaviors

associated with coordinating and synchronizing activities and establishing task and

role expectations.

Collaborative Problem Solving

Successful collaborative problem solving was thought to be associated with

project managers’ abilities to plan, partner with clients and team members, build and

utilize key relationships, and seek involvement. Study results indicate that leaders

within effective virtual project teams were more likely to plan than those within

ineffective virtual teams. In addition, they used client relationships strategically to

ensure that work was equitably distributed to all stakeholders. Finally, project

managers within effective virtual teams sought involvement via delegation,

escalation, approval, and guidance.

In order for members within virtual project teams to collaborate effectively,

project managers must demonstrate the ability to plan, partner with clients, and seek

involvement. Planning was positively associated with project managers’ abilities to

find and utilize the proper degree of participation from key stakeholders, both clients

and critical team member resources. The development of strategies prior to acting

127
allowed project managers to recognize obstacles to interdependent team involvement

and implement corrective action as a means to circumvent potential difficulties. One

project manager within an effective team made the following comment regarding the

importance of planning and client partnering:

The customer and I worked well together. It was a joint effort. It wasn’t me

just doing it all. Or, it wasn’t just the customer doing it all. It was something

that we decided jointly. … We both felt it was a partnership. There was

ownership on his side as well as … you know, from me.

Study findings are consistent with past research on virtual teaming which

asserts that strong relationships between leaders and members are constituted by task

related communications. These relationships are the result of interdependent task-

related effort along with some exchange of sentiment. While, weaker relationships

are a consequence of everyday communications which are more relational in nature

and focused on simply clarifying tasks (Hart and McLeod, 2003).

The present findings move beyond a general focus on relationships to

address the important role that clients play in assuring virtual project team success.

Think about it, the client is often the primary stakeholder evaluating the success or

failure of team efforts. Having partnering relationships with clients increases task

knowledge, empathy, and the possibility that interdependent action will be perceived

positively. The findings also suggest that the inability to foster environments where

the client plays an integral part in the attainment of performance objectives is

counterproductive to outcomes. Therefore, project managers must be mindful of the

128
pivotal role clients must play and should take care to promote partnering

relationships. This action ensures that clients are aware of strategies and that

proactive measures are taken to ensure the timely completion of performance

objectives.

Another behavior crucial to virtual team success is the ability of project

managers to find others within the organization willing to help. Project managers

within ineffective virtual project teams did not work to develop client partnerships,

nor were they able to commandeer expert resources crucial to the attainment of task

objectives. The following project manager describes the iterative processes often

associated with finding and utilizing personal contacts necessary for facilitating the

completion of performance objectives.

I had to call and talk to, like twenty-five people. … It took me forever to get

somebody. … I just find it all so laughable, cause during the conference call

that D.B. setup, he said, “you’re no longer gonna have to call your special

buddies to get special help. We have all these things in place.” And, I’m like

laughing. Nobody knows what’s in place. All we know is that there’s now

these new names with no actual people attached to them. … [Email addresses

that] go into black holes, and nobody’s accountable for anything.

Another manager describes the confusion and frustration often resulting from

the inability to ascertain information through formal channels.

129
 I just felt very frustrated, and … you know, where you just kind of almost

want to throw up your hands, and say, “I don’t know what else more I can do

for you guys.”

Contrary to conventional knowledge, team member partnering, adaptability,

developing and using bonds, and empowering others were not found to differentiate

virtual project team performance outcomes. There are several possible explanations

for these findings. First, within E-learn several functional areas supported project

manager efforts. One of these functions was customer service. The customer service

department was responsible for training clients and staff on customizing and running

reports, general system administration and other activities associated with operating

and maintaining client systems. Thus, empowering others was not a primary function

of the project manager’s role, but instead under the auspices of customer service.

Second, a significant portion of virtual team research highlights leader

flexibility as a fundamental attribute of virtual teaming (e.g., Johnson et. al, 2001;

Kayworth & Leidner, 2000; Wong & Burton, 2000; and Robey et. al, 1999). Project

managers’ ability to manage the completion of performance objectives is not only

based upon their ability to work collectively but also the ability to maneuver

blockades slowing or inhibiting progress. The completion of performance objectives

requires creativity in building and utilizing team member relationships. Hence,

project managers’ abilities to understand and utilize formal organization-based

networks would be considered a core competency regardless of performance

outcome.

130
 Previous research on virtual teams has tended to focus on contributions made

by leaders within teams as opposed to evaluating the combined contributions of all

stakeholders involved. One possible explanation for this approach is the fact that

project managers are held accountable for outcomes; thus, outcomes are the result of

heavy commitment and substantial personal investment. Their commitment only,

however, is not enough. The present findings are consistent with past research which

suggest that project managers must depend upon team member expertise and work in

conjunction with members to set consensus schedules and complete deliverables on

time and in accordance with prescribed guidelines (Furst et al., 2003; Gorton and

Motwani, 1996; Kayworth and Leidner, 2000).

The present study contributes to our current understanding of collaborative

problem solving within virtual project teams suggesting that certain KSAs are core to

virtual project team performances while others act as performance differentiators.

Team member partnering, adaptability, and developing and using bonds ensure that

virtual teamwork is possible. Likewise, project managers’ ability to plan, partner

with clients, and seeking delegation, escalation, approval and guidance make

successful virtual teamwork possible.

Effective virtual project teams within this study relied on project managers to

exert sufficient leadership, and to employ planning, client partnering and

involvement-seeking behaviors as a means to establish clear and engaging directions

before engaging others.

Study results also suggest that extra efforts be made to ensure that project

managers are able to access the information they need. Within E-learn, the primary

131
means of obtaining task knowledge was through reliance upon knowledge-bases,

internal web sites and other technologies serving as surrogates to human interaction.

The following excerpt is one project manager’s perception of the quality of these

systems.

We have a lot of information, kind of in documented either on the

course…on the course order form, or out on our Internet site, Smart Force dot

net. However, a lot of that information is generic and does not give you the

specifics on…you know, what course is specifically mapped to…what

certification, although that’s out there for upcoming courses, like for

upcoming new courses, and upcoming new exams. You don’t always have

the specifics there or the information is just wrong.

The poor quality of technology-based systems at E-learn forced project

managers to rely upon human resources to provide much needed information. This

reliance, in turn, impacted experts’ ability to address critical development issues

within the system and resulted in the establishment of rules of engagement and other

controls designed to protect these highly sought commodities.

E-learn implemented rules of engagement to protect scarce resources from

the myriad of requests inflicted by field-based personnel. Generic email addresses,

support hotlines, mediators and information brokers were strategically placed as

buffers between critical experts and those requesting their assistance. At times, these

intermediaries were effective in providing team members with the required expertise

while shielding critical resources from unwanted distractions. Often times, however,

132
these buffers impeded progress, allowing questions to go unanswered for inordinate

periods of time and shielding expert resources from accountability.

None of the proposed team member KSAs were attributable to collaborative

problem solving behaviors within successful virtual teams. Failure to demonstrate

availability, accountability, and responsiveness, however, were associated with

virtual team failures. The lack of research in this area suggests that research on team

member contributions to participative problem solving be undertaken. This would

include assessing team members’ abilities to recognize obstacles, build upon existing

information networks, and employ strategies leading to the achievement of effective

results.

Communications

Successful communications was thought to be associated with project

managers’ abilities to determine and commandeer team member resources, manage

client expectations, and understand others’ feelings, situations and motives. Study

results, however, indicated that project managers within effective virtual project

teams relied heavily upon empathy as a means to communicate. The ability to

understand others’ feelings, situations and motives was associated with the

successful completion of team performance objectives. On the other hand, project

managers’ inabilities to ascertain critical team member resources and manage

expectations were associated virtual project team failure.

Leaders within successful virtual project teams demonstrated an awareness of

team member interdependence using empathy to grow knowledge networks. By

capitalizing on both the formal and informal networks, these project managers were

133
able to find and commandeer team member expertise instrumental to the

achievement of team performance objectives.

The fact that team member resources were not physically present made

project managers’ abilities to listen actively and nonevaluatively even more

important. Project managers within effective virtual teams enlisted a multitude of

media to listen, gather facts, and create an accurate picture of situations requiring

intervention. Once tasks were clearly defined, the project manager began formulating

a team of experts to complete specific deliverables beyond the scope of their

expertise. One project manager within an ineffective virtual team expressed the

iterative processes and escalating frustration associated with the inability to discover

appropriate team member resources.

The doing is you’re sending people emails all over the place. You’re making

telephone calls. You’re calling your manager. You don’t know whether you

have any of the right people contacted. So, that feeling is you’re still unsure

as to whether you’re doing the right thing, or doing all that you can do,

because nothing is happening. Helplessness. I think you’re just feeling

like…you’re just feeling that you’ve sent it all over, but you don’t know

whether anything’s coming back. So, you just release it kind of feeling like,

I’m at everybody’s mercy, and yet you have no answers.

The present study contributes to our current understanding of virtual project

team communications by stressing the importance of empathy to the building and

development of virtual teams. Although previous research has tended to emphasize

134
dependence on knowledge-bases and other technological surrogates to human

interaction, this study’s findings emphasize the importance of human interaction to

virtual project team success. The distributed nature of virtual teams, coupled with the

inadequacies inherent in organization-based knowledge support systems, forces

virtual team members to rely upon each other. And, those relationships, in turn, are

paramount to success.

Effective project managers within virtual teams exhibited the ability to hear

and understand others attempting to share vital information regarding the completion

of performance objectives. Once a clear understanding of task knowledge is

established, the project manager could then begin to identify and gather individuals

with the necessary expertise to help complete performance objectives.

The importance of exhibiting empathy is consistent with group effectiveness

research emphasizing the contributions of group cohesion to effective performances.

Some groups operate in ways making it impossible for them to work together again.

Others result in the building or relationships which can be called upon in subsequent

times of need. Although the temporal nature of virtual teams suggests that group

cohesion is not the primary teller of performance outcome, the relationships, formal

and informal, forged as a direct result of task related activity serve as a foundation by

which subsequent virtual project teams successes and failures can be attributed.

Contrary to what one might expect, KSAs associated with developing and

utilizing bonds were not significantly associated with differences in virtual project

team performance outcomes. These findings are consistent with previous research on

collocated (Guzzo, 1986; and Shea & Guzzo, 1984) and virtual teams (Davidow and

135
Malone, 1992; DeSanctis et al., 1999; Jarillo, 1993; Lockett and Holland, 1996)

which establish the importance of interdependence to effective performance.

Named resources were quite often a scarcity at E-learn. Project managers

within successful teams were keenly aware of the importance of building internal

relationships and enlisted their aid to ensure the successful completion of

performance objectives. These project managers relied upon both formal and

informal networks to gain information and human resources critical to the

completion of performance objectives. One project manager noted the lack of formal

processes at E-learn and the resulting dependence on informal human networks as a

means to achieve performance objectives.

In this company, nothing is written down of who knows what, and who to go

to for what. It’s very rare that happens. And, if it does, it changes within a

month. So, just having an internal…you know, it’s building relationships

within the company, and knowing who’s who. … Because, you get to know,

too at the point where you’re having dialog with these people either on the

phone or via email that you can’t push the resource. I mean, you can

only…you know, drain blood of…so much blood out of a turnip. So, you’ve

got to utilize your resources very well.

This process, however, was often hindered by rules of engagement and other

organizational controls enacted to protect scarce expert resources. In attempts to

protect these resources, E-learn implemented generic email addresses, support

136
hotlines, information brokers, and other surrogates to serve as buffers between

organization experts and field-based personnel requesting their assistance.

Project managers within successful virtual teams understand formal networks

and have mastered ways to circumvent them if and when they become burdensome.

All the while, they remain mindful of keeping stakeholders (clients, management,

team members, etc.) abreast of changes and any potential to delay the completion of

key deliverables. While managing expectations may not directly impact the

completion of performance objectives per se, doing so resets the measure of

expectations, making it increasingly possible for virtual project teams to be

perceived as successful. One project manager within an ineffective virtual team

shares a story regarding the anxiety associated with not proactively communicating

with clients.

The response I got [from the client] was, “why are you just asking me this

now?” So, she was disappointed that it had taken so long to get to this point.

And, she was expecting to have these things already underway. And so, she

was very frustrated that the process wasn’t as far along as she thought it

was. … And, then I was feeling like, “Oh my God, I’m feeling guilty that I

hadn’t addressed it sooner.”

The present study contributes to our current understanding of virtual project team

effectiveness by suggesting the need for proactive communications which help reset

the timelines associated with completing objectives. More importantly, this study

137
indicates that organizations’ attempts to protect scare resources are often

counterproductive to virtual project team success. Thus, these organizations must

find effective ways to provide expertise without negatively impacting virtual team

performances or dismantling the complex subtle network of experts necessary to

develop and support organization-based products.

Successful communications was thought to be associated with team

members’ abilities to manage expectations, display empathy, and demonstrate

availability, accountability and responsiveness to project manager and team member

requests. Study findings indicate that team members within effective virtual project

teams were rarely credited for the positive display of these behaviors. Therefore,

these KSAs were not attributable to virtual project team success. Findings, however,

did suggest that team members perceived inability to listen and understand others

when attempting to convey information relevant to the completion of performance

objectives, and the lack of perceived presence was associated with virtual project

team failures.

Thus, team members must be perceived as non-evaluative listeners enlisting

the appropriate active listening techniques to ensure successful virtual project team

performance. This reflexive behavior ensures that critical task knowledge is

understood and acted upon in a manner which leads to the completion or virtual

project team performance objectives. One project manager expresses the impact of

team member empathy and accessibility on psychological well-being.

It was hard for me not to internalize what was going on because I had no one

else there who was able to empathize with the situation, or to say, “Oh, you

138
 know what, I’m hearing the same thing.” Or, to tell me, “Yes, I know they’re

working on this.” There just was nobody else there to share information with,

or to … you know, vent about the situation. Or … you know, some way to

kind of put it in perspective.

Previous research has found that team member psychological fulfillment is

critical to effective group performances (Hackman, 1986, 1990). The present study

contributes to our current understanding of virtual project team effectiveness by

suggesting that project managers’ psychological well-being is associated with team

members’ perceived display of understanding regarding the precarious and often

times difficulty situations encountered when attempting to develop and lead virtual

teams. Narratives indicated that project managers often feel organization-based

support personnel have no concept of how difficult it is to work virtually. Given the

importance of empathy and social presence to effective virtual project team

performance, it can be concluded that organization-based support personnel must

gain some field experience if they are to adequately support their virtual constituency.

Experiencing the pressures associated with physically and often psychologically

distant resources would offer a unique perspective and potentially increase their

understanding of the need for perceived empathy, availability, accountability and

responsiveness.

Goal Setting & Performance Management

Successful goal attainment and performance management were thought to be

associated with project managers’ self-confidence, belief in team member

139
capabilities, understanding of performance objectives and overall abilities to perform

their duties. Study results indicated that project managers’ accumulated task

knowledge was instrumental to the establishment of specific, challenging, and

mutually accepted team goals while their perceptions of individual competencies and

belief in their personal capabilities were attributable to the successful monitoring of

and feedback on overall team performance.

Belief in personal capabilities was the foundation by which project managers

tackled objectives. In the end, it was their self-confidence that allowed them to

master the intricate networks associated with virtual teaming and develop teams

capable of completing performance objectives. One project manager responded to

the interviewer’s request to summarize what made the situation effective as follows:

I felt very effective in that I knew what I needed to do. I had the ability and

skills to do it myself, and could manage my own time and didn’t have to …

you know, to go through any other approval. I knew exactly what I needed to

do and got it done.

Project managers exhibiting self-confidence were better equipped to develop

and lead successful virtual teams. To the contrary, project managers lacking self-

confidence were unable to trust themselves or other members within the team. Hence,

those teams generally failed to complete performance objectives on time and in

accordance with organizational standards. One project manager within an ineffective

virtual team summarized this often paralyzing lack of confidence in critical resources

as follows.

140
 If I were a technical person and could I would rather do it myself. Because I

feel like I’ve always had to manage him. … I don’t know why I have to

manage him … I’ve got enough of my own stuff to do. I wish that I could

depend on him to follow through with the project without me having to

always check up on it … but I can’t.

Project managers within ineffective virtual teams displayed a lack of

confidence in themselves and others around them. This lack of potency resulted in

the need to follow up on tasks which had been delegated and/or escalated and

substantially increased the already taxing workload associated with developing and

managing virtual project teams. This added anxiety impacted the ability of project

managers to perform accordingly.

The present findings are consistent with past research on the importance of

establishing trust within virtual teams (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998). The findings are also

consistent with theory on group effectiveness establishing the impact of potency on

the achievement of team performance outcomes (Guzzo, 1986; Shea & Guzzo, 1984).

Results contribute to our current understanding of virtual project team effectiveness

by proposing that team members enlist KSAs which make trust possible. In addition,

organizations must find ways to bolster project manager confidence. Together, these

efforts will ensure that virtual project teams possess potency critical to the attainment

of interdependent task objectives.

Successful goal attainment and performance management was thought to be

associated with team member talent, experience and expertise. This notion, however,

141
was not supported. Overall, project managers did not attribute positive displays of

team member competence to virtual team success. That, however, is not to say that

team member competence is a core behavior exhibited within both effective and

ineffective teams. In fact, the inability of team members to display competence was

attributed to virtual project team failures. This finding alone underscores the

importance of team member competence.

The reluctance of project managers to attribute displays of team member

competencies to successful overall performances suggests that team member

competence is most likely assumed. In other words, project managers by and large

trust in team members’ talent, experience and expertise. It is only when this trust is

violated that behaviors become attributable.

Although the positive display of competence was not found to significantly

differentiate virtual project team outcomes, the perceived lack of team member

competence did. By design, project managers within virtual teams must depend upon

expert resources to ensure the completion of interdependent task objectives. This

necessary dependence entails that team members exhibit the necessary talent,

experience and expertise to complete their individual deliverables. Lack of

competence, therefore, becomes the attribute most apparent in situations where team

members are ill-equipped to perform.

Without the aid of competent team member resources by their side, project

managers must rely on their personal capabilities. Unfortunately, these skills are

often insufficient. Thus, lack of perceived team member competence leads to project

manager feelings of inadequacy and regular failure to complete performance

142
objectives. One project manager within an ineffective virtual team explains the need

to mediate where expert resources clearly displayed a lack of competence.

The IC was not asking valuable questions. He wasn’t real versed in what he

probably should have been asking. So, that pre-implementation call at that

moment went really poorly. And, many times I had to step in and redirect the

call, and make them [the client] … in my opinion feel comfortable with the

way the call was going.

Contrary to conventional research on the importance of establishing swift

trust within virtual teams, the present findings assert that trust within virtual teams

may be assumed until proven otherwise. Moreover, the present findings suggest that

additional research within the areas of virtual project team potency, trust, and their

relation to performance outcomes should be undertaken.

Planning & Task Coordination

Successful planning and task coordination were thought to be associated with

project managers’ abilities to proactively pursue relevant data and information,

develop strategies to address situations, partner with clients and team members,

understand the roles and actions associated with achieving performance objectives,

and help direct problem resolutions. Results indicated that project managers within

effective virtual teams were significantly more facilitative, recognized the

importance of developing client relationships, and actively researched and developed

strategies prior to acting.

143
 Project manager pre-work, planning, client partnering and facilitation were

associated with the successful completion of virtual project team performance

objectives while the inability to partner with clients and lack of understanding

regarding virtual teamwork processes were associated with perceived failure to

complete team objectives. The following is an example of one project manager’s

efforts to strategize with clients on the development of mutually acceptable solutions.

I was working with a great customer, and they were going through a library

swap. And, we really wanted to … increase their titles in the library to up

their contract value. … What I did is I identified [needs]. … Instead of just

sending the results to the client, I thought, how would a customer want …

why would a customer want to add more titles? What would be the incentive?

You know, what would get them thinking in the mode of more titles.

Contrary to what was expected, team member partnering and understanding

roles did not distinguish success from failure among virtual project teams. As

discussed earlier, virtual team research highlights team member partnering as a core

competency for virtual team project managers. In order to effectively partner with

team members, project managers must understand individual member roles and

responsibilities. This task knowledge contributes to successful partnering and

management of interdependent task objectives. Hence, we must conclude that

understanding roles is also a fundamental competency for project managers within

virtual teams.

144
 These findings are consistent with past research on virtual teams which

emphasizes the importance of clearly establishing relationships and roles within

virtual contexts (Gorton & Motwani, 1996; Lurey & Raisinghami, 2001; Wong &

Burton, 2000). The present study contributes to our current understanding of virtual

project team effectiveness by suggesting that organizations housing virtual teams

make concerted efforts to ensure that project managers understand who does what.

Without this knowledge, project managers are left spending inordinate amounts of

time in search of necessary expertise.

Finally, none of the team member KSAs thought to be associated with the

successful planning and task coordination of interdependent virtual project team

objectives proved significant. These results suggest that team members within

effective virtual project teams do their jobs as expected. In other words, team

members’ perceived abilities to plan and coordinate activities, tasks and information

were assumed by project managers. To the contrary, the perceived unwillingness or

inability to demonstrate presence and facilitate the completion of performance

objectives was unexpected and unmistakably apparent.

Team members’ inability or unwillingness to engage in actions which helped

facilitate the completion of interdependent team objectives was most apparent in

situations where planning and task coordination were critical to the completion of

virtual project team performance objectives. Below, one project manager notes the

lack of trust and perceived willingness to facilitate often propagated within the

organizational culture.

145
 When development sent that information to our buffers, what we got out of

that was that that’s the way it’s supposed to work. There’s something not

right. Communications is not right, or they don’t trust us enough to tell us …

you know, just tell us things aren’t working right. … And, that can lead into

another whole can of worms.

The present findings are consistent with past research on virtual teams

demonstrating, once again, the importance of establishing trust among team

members. More importantly, it illustrates the impact that organizational culture,

norms, and other situational factors have on project managers’ perceptions of team

member capabilities.

Often times, team member performance is constrained by organizational-

based culture, norms, and rules of engagement. Nonetheless, project managers

habitually attribute lack of responsiveness to deficient knowledge, skill and abilities.

Current findings suggest that subsequent research begin to address not only the

dispositional but also the situational factors attributable to differences in virtual

project team performance outcomes.

Processes Associated with Successful Virtual Teamwork

Successful virtual project teams instill within their members a sense of self-

worth based upon their perceived ability to contribute to team performance outcomes,

participate in the interdependent completion of tasks leading to timely value-added

performances, and see objectives through from beginning to end. These attributes of

146
performance not only enhance members’ personal growth and well-being, but also

foster environments where teamwork and ultimately overall effective performances

are made possible.

These attributes help establish reasons why virtual teams ultimately perform

in the manner in which they do. However, they do little to determine the association

between individual member behavior and virtual team performance outcomes.

Research on group effectiveness offers three general ingredients to help ascertain the

factors associated with effective performance: clear and engaging directions;

enabling performance situations; and adequate material resources (Hackman, 1990;

Hackman & Walton, 1986). Enabling performance situations are further

distinguished to identify three process criteria for creating conditions which enhance

team performance. These processes include exerting sufficient effort, establishing

sufficient knowledge and skill, and developing appropriate task performance

strategies.

Figure 5.1: Process Model of Effective Virtual Teamwork

Discovery & Preparation Leadership Potency

Exerting sufficient effort:
- Conducting research
- Planning
Establishing clear &
engaging directions:
- Understanding objectives
- Understanding action
Employing appropriate team- Believing that virtual project team can be
building strategies: effective:
- Client partnering2
- Managing expectations Project Manager Team Member
- Delegating/escalating - Confidence5 - Confidence
- Seeking approval - Competence6 - Competence
- Seeking guidance - Empathy - Empathy
- Determining Team Member - Facilitation - Facilitation4
Resources3 - Availability1
- Accountability
- Responsiveness

Team composition with adequate KSAs to

complete virtual project team performance
objectives.

147
 Figure 5.1 illustrates the teamwork processes enlisted by successful virtual

project teams. This process model is based upon both an iterative review of the data

and six years experience as a participant observer within virtual project teams. All

KSAs associated with differences in virtual project team outcomes are represented.

Distinguishing KSAs are then classified by process (exerting sufficient effort,

establishing clear and engaging directions, employing appropriate team-building

strategies, and believing that virtual project teams can be effective) in accordance

with traditional research and findings on group effectiveness (Hackman, 1990,

Hackman & Walton, 1986, Guzzo, 1986). Finally, processes are classified within

three categories: discovery and preparation, leadership, and potency.

Discovery and preparation represents actions taken by the project manager to

ensure that tasks and objectives are understood prior to action. Leadership represents

the enactment stage for the virtual project manager. Here the project manager acts to

assemble expert teams deemed necessary for the completion of interdependent

performance objectives. Lastly, potency represents the project manager’s overall

belief in his or her capabilities and those upon whom he or she must rely.

By enlisting appropriate discovery and preparation techniques, demonstrating

leadership abilities, and having a firm belief in the team as a collectivity, virtual

project teams can and often are effective.

Discovery & Preparation

148
 The discovery and preparation stage of completing interdependent virtual

team objectives involves exerting sufficient effort and establishing clear and

engaging directions. In order to begin the successful completion of virtual project

team objectives, the project manager must conduct research and plan to ensure

proper clarification of task knowledge. Task knowledge, in turn, involves not only

understanding task objectives but also establishing action steps to ensure their

completion. Exerting sufficient effort and establishing clear and engaging directions

is thus an iterative process. The project manager moves back and forth between

research, planning, establishing objectives, and clarifying action until all task

knowledge necessary for the completion of performance objectives is attained. Once

all relevant information is gathered, managers move to the next stage of goal

attainment, employing appropriate team-building strategies.

Leadership

Leadership is demonstrated by project managers’ abilities to compose and

manage teams of experts who must work interdependently to complete virtual project

team objectives. As can be seen, these KSAs (client partnering, managing

expectations, delegating/escalating, seeking approval and guidance, and determining

team member resources) involve locating, soliciting, and managing client and team

member relations critical to the attainment of performance objectives.

Project managers’ abilities to develop partnering relationships with clients

ensure that those clients become integral members of the team. In doing so, they not

only ensure key contributions from these members but ownership of outcomes as

149
well. The ability to manage expectations helps buffer stakeholder responses on

unexpected outcomes. Through continuous communications with clients, team

members, and other stakeholders, project managers protect themselves from the

onslaught of problems associated with interdependent virtual teamwork.

The project manager must be mindful not to become overworked and seek

help as needed. Delegating and escalating, seeking approval, and guidance are all

actions associated with soliciting help from team members. As the virtual teamwork

literature suggests, work-a-holism is a problem for many virtual workers. Reliance

on others diminishes the probability of work overload. Once virtual project teams

have successfully been assembled, performances must be closely monitored to

ensure that members complete interdependent deliverables leading to task

completion. The project managers’ ability to do so is contingent upon their belief in

self and those who support them.

Potency

Potency refers to project managers’ belief or trust that the team can be

effective. Results of this study have indicated that four project manager (confidence,

competence, empathy and facilitation) and seven perceived team member

(confidence, competence, empathy, facilitation, availability, accountability, and

responsiveness) KSAs are associated with trust. First, project managers must

perceive themselves as capable, possessing the necessary talent, experience and

expertise to manage the completion of virtual project team performance objectives.

Second, they must exhibit the emotional competence to understand others’ feelings,

150
motives and situations and act in a manner which ensures that activities, information

and tasks are channeled in a direction which leads to proper handling and resolution.

Equally important, team members must be perceived as confident, competent,

empathetic and facilitative if virtual project teams are to be considered successful.

The most important KSAs distinguishing effectiveness for virtual teams were related

to social presence. Project managers must perceive expert team member resources as

available, accountable and responsive. Without perceived support on the part of

critical human resources, project managers are left feeling alone or isolated. Left

unresolved, these feelings of isolation often lead to heightened frustration, work-a-

holism and other negative outgrowths commonly associated with virtual teaming and

failure to achieve performance objectives. The following excerpt describes project

manager dependence on team member resources and the impact of social presence

on performance outcomes.

I can control how I communicate out, and how I interact with other people,

and in some cases it’s been effective and some cases it has not been. But,

where I have felt the disconnection and sort of the loneliness of the virtual

role has been with information that’s not flowing down to me. Others who

are above me are not communicating well, or not available. Not making

themselves available. I can’t get a hold of people to get information, or get

people to contact me in response to my feelers.

151
 Virtual Teamwork Distinguisher

There were a total of six virtual teamwork KSAs which contributed most to

differences in performance outcomes. They were, in order of importance: team

member responsiveness; project manager client partnering; project manager resource

determination; team member facilitation; project manager self-confidence; and

project manager competence (See Table 5.4).

Table 5.4: Discriminating Virtual Teamwork Knowledge, Skills and Abilities

Order Virtual Project Teamwork KSAs

1 (-) Team Member – Responsiveness
2 (+) Project Manager – Client Partnering
3 (-) Project Manager – Team Member Resource Determination
4 (-) Team Member – Facilitation
5 (-) Project Manager – Self-Confidence
6 (+) Project Manager – Competence

The lack of perceived responsiveness had the greatest impact in virtual team

effectiveness. Team members perceived as unresponsive to requests for assistance

contributed most to virtual project team failure, decreasing the likelihood that

members could work interdependently in terms of: communicating, setting goals,

managing performances, and planning and coordinating tasks. One project manager

explains the “disconnect” often attributed to lack of responsiveness by critical expert

resources.

From the meeting there was a whole list of critical follow-up. I mean, just

things that we normally don’t provide… so it’s not actually information that’s

just sitting out there on Smart Force Central [Website], or that I have

information about. But, all this follow-up that I needed to do, and I just

152
 really didn’t know where to go with that. … I spent time calling other people,

and doing some research on our Internet site to find out actually who I

needed to go to first. And, of course, I had to wait for people to call me back,

or to send me an email to get that information. And, then again, because of

the virtual situation, I don’t know all these people. They don’t know who I

am. … And, so felt like sometimes that they maybe were not as responsive to

me as they would be if I was a live person in front of them explaining what

the situation was. … I was feeling kind of a lack of connection there,

because of the response that I was getting from people. And, that had I been

live in person with those individuals, I could have conveyed how critical the

situation was in more than just me telling them. You know? They could see

that. I could show them things. But, so I felt like I was maybe losing some

of that, because of the virtual ness, and also just…again, waiting for people to

call me back, waiting for responses.

Project managers’ abilities to partner with clients were next with regards to

critical KSAs distinguishing effective from ineffective virtual project team

performances. Much of the literature on virtual teams and virtual team effectiveness

fails to address the importance of embracing clients and other stakeholders as key

contributors to the team. The ability to establish relationships with clients ensures

shared responsibility in planning and ultimately in performance and is indicative of

project managers’ abilities to develop and lead competent virtual teams. Those

project managers that understood the importance of including clients as integral

153
members of their team substantially increased the team’s overall performance

potential. The following project manager excerpt demonstrates the importance of

partnering with clients.

It took a year to get them [the client] up and running. We did the weekly

conference calls, and then went through the pilot test with them which I

project managed as well. And, then worked with them on their marketing

communications. That one I gave a lot of information to the client, and then

she came up with some great ideas, and mixed and matched it the way she

wanted to. And, together we came up with this e-learning showcase idea, and

launched it. … That went really well. They had excellent turnout for that.

And, we got a lot of positive feedback about how the launch went.

The inability to ascertain critical team member resources was third in level of

importance for KSAs distinguishing differences in virtual project team outcomes.

Pinpointing experts instrumental to the attainment of interdependent objectives is a

major hurdle when working within virtual environments. Project managers’ abilities

to locate and commandeer expert resources needed to facilitate the completion of

performance objectives were indicative of their ability to lead. Resource

determination leads to the development of expert teams with the necessary KSAs to

complete performance objectives while failure to discover appropriate team member

resources was associated with perceived ineffectiveness for virtual teams as a whole.

The following project manager excerpt describes the time often wasted in attempts to

maneuver the organizational controls and locate and manage human resources.

154
 I try to do as much as I can myself. Just…you know, trying to find the

technical information. … I have to be mindful of the time that I’m taking in

order to give an answer to that client. And, I’ve already gone through the

proper channels, and it’s been a week, and I’ve not heard anything back. …

The only way I’ve been successful is to go around the system. … I am

finding that I’m spending a lot of time trying to track down internal resources.

And, a lot of time then, making sure that those internal resources deliver on

what they promise.

The following project manager explains the benefits associated with teamwork and

the impact of locating and soliciting team member resources to facilitate the

successful completion of interdependent performance objectives.

I’ve been with the company for so long. And, I know who to go to. So, in

terms of knowledge, knowing who you need to go to, where you can find

information is key to being successful in this job. It really, really is. … A lot

of quite random questions come up, and I think it just takes so much time to

really…to try and figure out, “well, who do I go to for that?” And, I get

stumped a lot, too. But, I probably have a little bit easier time than the [new

guys] because I know where…who to go to, or not. I can ask, hopefully, the

right people that can steer me in the right direction.

Fourth in line of importance was the perceived inability or unwillingness of

team members to facilitate the completion of interdependent task objectives. These

155
negative perceptions of team member commitment lead to problems coordinating

and synchronizing activities, information, and task interdependencies which are

necessary for the successful completion of performance objectives. In order for

virtual project teams to be successful, project managers must believe that team

members are being honest and forthright in their efforts to help complete

performance objectives. One project manager shares an example in which poor

organization-based support is provided.

I feel most ineffective if we don’t know what’s going on behind that magic

line that’s drawn at the customer’s service specialist level, or deployment

level. Seems to be a little bit of a brick wall there. We send a request in.

Some magic is done, and then management’s sent out. But, we don’t actually

know what the problem is behind the lines. I’m sure we can pick the phone

up, and call someone, and say, “What’s going on? Tell me the truth.” But,

we don’t do that. We haven’t been encouraged to do that. And, at the same

token, there’s not a lot of communications coming back to us. … We’re on

the front line, and we are dealing with irate people for at least a week and a

half before receiving a solid answer. I don’t think that’s very good customer

service.

Another project manager shares the information coordination issues associated with

reduced ability to network with expert resources inherent in virtual project teams.

… [E-learn] management has done a very poor job of putting out information

as far as changes in the system of how things work. When they knew things

156
 didn’t work a certain way. … I get really upset, because if it’s a known issue

you ought to let me know. ... So, I feel very ineffective at times where I’m

sitting out on my own, going to meetings, doing the clients, working out of

my office, and I don’t have all the information. I’ve worked in corporations

where it’s not a lot better, but you can tend to network with people better

because you’re in a building.

Project managers’ lack of self-confidence ranked fifth among KSAs

distinguishing performance outcomes. Project managers must exhibit a belief in their

own capabilities if virtual project teams are to be effective. Project managers lacking

confidence negatively impact their ability to amass and manage expert teams. The

following excerpt describes the processes enlisted by one project manager based

upon a waning belief in his/her personal abilities to resolve the situation at hand.

What is frustrating, or makes me feel ineffective is that I have no

management or authority on any of the other groups, so I am really unable to

force, or make change quickly. It really happens based on everyone else’s

timeline. And, it takes a lot of project management skills to try to manage

other people’s resources.

The last KSA pivotal to differences in perceived virtual project team

performance outcomes was project manager competence. The display of necessary

talent, experience and expertise is critical to the project management role. Perceived

competence allows these individuals to establish specific, challenging and accepted

157
team goals, and to evaluate and provide team member feedback ensuring the

successful completion of performance objectives. The following project manager

describes the competent manner in which they evaluated a situation and provided

critical team member feedback.

I was gathering this information, and I was talking to all these different

individuals, I was taking notes about just kind of doing an outline of what the

information was, and then what type of process was in place, or what type of

process was not in place. And, by doing that, I was kind of able to pinpoint

where this breakdown in information was happening. And, then I was also

able to realize that some very important information had not been given out

to the learning managers about some changes that had been made on the site.

In Summary

Contrary to current notions, leadership characteristics accounted for only

one-third of the competencies which were found to be significantly associated with

virtual project team performance outcomes. Leadership KSAs best predicting

outcomes included client partnering, ranking second in impact, and team member

resource determination, ranking third. These skills were deemed critical to project

managers’ abilities to develop virtual teams with the appropriate mix of

competencies necessary to complete interdependent performance objectives.

Interestingly enough, two-thirds of the KSAs which best distinguished

performance outcomes were associated with team potency. Team potency or the

belief in the teams’ capability to succeed was mandated by two factors: project

158
managers’ 1.) belief in themselves and 2.) perceptions of team members’ disposition.

Project manager feelings of self-confidence and competence ranked fifth and sixth

among those KSAs best predicting performance outcomes. This illustrates the

importance of member actions and activities which promote leaders as both

competent and desirable. In addition, it indicates the need for project managers to

develop foundational and distinguishing competencies necessary to perform

effectively.

Team member responsiveness was of primary importance to project

managers’ perceptions of team member contributions. As a result, team members

must ensure that they are perceived as socially presence and willing to facilitate

project manager efforts. In turn, leaders must promote team members as beneficial,

vital partners and offer opportunities for them to contribute freely.

Successful virtual project teams place emphasis on organizational advocacy.

By that I mean individuals must be willingly responsible and accountable for the

team’s performance. Team member actions and activities must promote project

managers and other leaders as competent; and leaders must understand and cultivate

the value of team member contributions. This will be accomplished by not only

focusing on virtual team leadership but expanding current research efforts to

incorporate the impact to potency on virtual project team performances. Future

research on virtual team effectiveness should include situational and dispositional

factors which:

- Enhance perceptions of team member responsiveness and facilitation

- Increase project manager self-confidence and overall feelings of competence

159
 - Facilitate the discovery and attainment of critical team resources

- Aid in the development of client relationships

Limitations of the study

This section identifies some of the study limitations which should be

considered when viewing results. It also has implications for the future study of

individual member behaviors contributing to differences in virtual project team

performance outcomes.

Due to the limited empirical research on virtual project team effectiveness,

this study was designed to explore the differences between effective and ineffective

virtual project team performances. The intent was not to determine those individual

KSAs relating to effective outcomes, but instead to identify those behaviors

differentiating perceived performance outcomes (effective or ineffective). Thus, the

results indicate relationships between specific virtual team member behaviors and

performance outcomes, but they do not suggest causality.

Project manager and team member behaviors were based largely upon an

iterative review of the data. Because KSAs were grounded in data rather than

theoretically informed, we must entertain the possibility that significant findings

occurred by chance. As a result, these findings should be viewed with caution until

they can be replicated.

This study was designed to look exclusively at project manager perceptions

as a means to assess the association between member behaviors and performance

outcomes. Other independent measures of effectiveness (e.g., manager judgment,

160
customer satisfaction, etc. ) were not enlisted. Consequently, findings from this

study are not objectively neutral and may reflect project managers’ personal values,

beliefs, and past experiences (Bailey, 1994). Although research on group

effectiveness (Guzzo, 1986; Shea & Guzzo, 1985) supports the use of project

manager perceptions as valid outcome measures, future studies might enlist other

measures as a means of replicating findings.

The present study did not take into account task type, team type, degree of

associated interaction, or individual team member contributions. Teams explored as

part of this study represented one type of virtual team. The degree of virtuality

demonstrated by study participants might have a direct impact on research findings.

Thus, generalizability across task-types, team typology, levels of interdependence,

and virtual project team size may impact findings. Future studies should explore

these areas as a means to further clarify the association between individual member

KSAs and virtual teamwork outcomes.

Finally, the Critical Incident Interview (CII) methodology (McClelland &

Daily, 1972) designed to study job competencies was used to capture project

managers’ perceptions of key behaviors. This data collection technique was selected

because of the researcher’s interest in learning about virtual project team members’

thoughts and behaviors as they carried out their roles. This approach to data

collection urges respondents to recall salient moments as a means to uncover detailed

information about work behavior. Dependence on respondent recall, however,

increased opportunity for interpretation and error in data collection. Nonetheless,

161
research has shown this technique to be a reliable and valid method for obtaining

accurate descriptions of behavior (Motowidlo et al., 1992; Ronan & Latham, 1974).

Future Research Directions

Despite the limitations of this study, several important directions for future

research in the area of individual member competencies and their association with

virtual project team performance outcomes is evident. Future investigation will not

only prove important to researchers interested in exploring virtual team effectiveness,

but to practitioners attempting to design and implement virtual teams as well.

The current study enlists subjective measures of effectiveness to determine

associations between individual member KSAs and virtual project team performance

outcomes. Future studies should attempt to replicate these findings using objective

measures of effectiveness (e.g., customer satisfaction, manager judgment, etc.).

These findings would expand our understanding of virtual teams by eliminating or

tempering the impact of personal values, beliefs, and past experiences.

Current findings are based solely upon project manager perceptions.

Replicating this study using team member narratives would advance our

understanding of the KSAs associated with performance outcomes. By combining

findings from project manager and team member narrative analysis, a more well-

rounded view of the dispositional and situational factors impacting virtual project

team performance outcomes would surely result.

A logical step in the study of KSAs associated with differences in virtual

project team performance outcomes would be to develop a survey instrument based

upon current findings. A survey instrument would be instrumental to validating

162
findings. Moreover, it would prove valuable for collecting data within varying types

of virtual teams and organizations.

No extant research on conflict resolution within virtual teams was discovered.

The lack of empirical research in this area indicates an opportunity to explore the

impact that conflict and the subsequent employment of resolution strategies has on

virtual project team performance outcomes. A structured review of literature and

findings also indicated that team member potency, not just trust, had a major impact

on virtual project team performance outcomes. Hence, additional research should be

conducted to determine the differences between potency and trust within virtual

teams and the resulting impact on virtual project team performance outcomes.

This study concludes by suggesting four areas with the greatest potential for

impacting differences in virtual project team performance outcomes. These areas

include: 1.) bolstering team member responsiveness and facilitation; 2.) increasing

project manager confidence and feelings of competence; 3.) finding and

commandeering critical team member resources; and 4.) partnering with clients.

Additional research should be conducted to explore ways in which organizations and

virtual team members espouse these behaviors.

Finally, the current study makes advances in helping understand the

individual member behaviors associated with effective virtual teamwork. Subsequent

research efforts should enhance Stevens and Campion’s (1994) KSAs required for

teamwork to include not only interpersonal and self-management KSAs but socio-

technical KSAs differentiating performance outcomes as well. One way to

accomplish this is by developing a coding scheme which would capture specific

163
behaviors associated with conflict resolution, collaborative problem solving,

communications, goal setting and performance management, planning & task

coordination, and socio-technical ability within virtual project teams.

164
 APPENDIX

Appendix A: Proposed Skills Associated with Effective

Virtual Teaming

Virtual Teamwork Themes Supporting Literature

Accountability Gorton and Motwani (1999)
Johnson et. al (2001)
Fuehrer and Ashkanasy (1999)
Furst et. al (2003)
Adaptability Johnson et. al (2001)
Kayworth and Leidner (2000)
Robey et. al (1999)
Townsend and DeMarie (1999)
Warkentin et. al (1999)
Wong and Burton (2000)
Das and Teng (1999)
Furst et. al (2003)

Availability McGrath (1984)

Fuehrer and Ashkanasy (1999)
Furst et. al (2003)
Building Bonds Holton (2001)
Lurey and Raisinghami (2001)
Pauleen and Yoong (2001)
Warkentin et. al (1999)
Kayworth and Leidner (2000)
McGrath (1984)

Client Partnering Bal and Foster (2000)

Competence Johnson et. al (2001)
Delegation/Escalation Bal and Foster (2000)
Stough et. al (2000)
Furst et. al (2003)
Gorton and Motwani (1999)
Empathy Kayworth and Leidner (2000)
Fuehrer and Ashkanasy (1999)
Warkentin et. al (1999)
Empowering Stough et. al (2000)
Robey et. al (1999)

165
Facilitation Bal and Foster (2000)
Stough et. al (2000)
Kayworth and Leidner (2000)
Managing Expectations Bal and Foster (2000)
Planning Kayworth and Leidner (2000)
Furst et. al (2003)
Pre-work Furst et. al (2003)
Resource Determination Bal and Foster (2000)
Warkentin et. al (1999)
Gorton and Motwani (1999)
Responsiveness Fuehrer and Ashkanasy (1999)
Furst et. al (2003)
Seeking Approval Stough et. al (2000)
Seeking Guidance Kayworth and Leidner (2000)
Stough et. al (2000)
Gorton and Motwani (1999)
Self-confidence Warkentin et. al (1999)
Johnson et. al (2001)
Team Member Confidence Stough et. al (2000)
Raghurma et. al (2001)
Jarvenpaa et. al (1999)
Team Member Partnering Bal and Foster (2000)
Gorton and Motwani (1999)
Holton (2001)
Kayworth and Leidner (2000)
Raghurma et. al (2001)
Robey et. al (1999)

Understanding Action Lurey and Raisinghami (2001)

Fuehrer and Ashkanasy (1999)
Kayworth and Leidner (2000)
Stough et. al (2000)
Understanding Objectives Lurey and Raisinghami (2001)
Raghurma et. al (2001)
Warkentin et. al (1999)
Das and Teng (1999)
Fuehrer and Ashkanasy (1999)
Kayworth and Leidner (2000)
Scott and Townsend (1999)
Stough et. al (2000)

166
Understanding Roles Bal and Foster (2000)
Lurey and Raisinghami (2001)
Raghurma et. al (2001)
Townsend and Demarie (1999)
Wong and Burton (2000)
Fuehrer and Ashkanasy (1999)
Kayworth and Leidner (2000)
Gorton and Motwani (1999)

167
 Appendix B: Codebook

DISCOVERY
PW Pre-work
Action taken to obtain relevant data or information on a situation. Work
conducted to better understand what needs to be done. Examples include:
testing systems, checking the accuracy of information, searching for
information online or within corporate databases and researching to clarify or
add to ones existing knowledge.

Examples: “I did my homework so I knew what to expect …”, “I closed the

browser down and started it again…,” “I tried to replicate the problem.”

PREPARATION
PL Planning
Developing a strategy for addressing a situation, goal or task prior to action.
Calling upon past experiences to devise alternatives. This would include
developing contingency plans … devising options or alternatives to action …
brainstorming … proactively planning.

Examples: “… I told him, of course, what went wrong, and why it went
wrong, and what we don’t want to happened and what we wanted to do.”

PAR Partnering
1.) Client
Subject acts to ensure that clients share responsibility in planning and/or
subsequent outcomes. Client is included in the preparation and work
conducted to achieve objective. Client plays an integral part in achieving
desired outcome.

Example: “I involved the client so they had no problems …,” “The client did
one part and I the other …”

2.) Team Member

Subject acts to ensure that internal team members share responsibility in
planning and/or subsequent outcomes. Internal team members play an
integral or key part in achieving desired objective.

Example: “you know, I like to empower … I try to empower my customers as

much as possible …,” “I train my clients to do it themselves…”

ENACTMENT – LEADERSHIP (characteristics)

CON Confident
1.) Self Confidence

168
 Belief in one’s personal capabilities. Expressing one’s ability to adequately
address a situation, task or goal. Fearlessness is an example.

Examples: “I knew the answer, all I had to do was …”, “I did it myself,” “ I
was confident.”

2.) Resource Confidence

Belief in others (client, team member …) capabilities. Expressing the belief
or understanding that another is capable of completing a situation, goal or
task. Trust is an example.

Examples:”… I knew from previous dealings with this individual that I could
count on this person to get me the answers that I needed.”

ADP Adaptable
Respondent’s ability to maneuver obstacles blocking or slowing progress
toward situation, task or goal. The ability to determine and enact
workarounds necessary to complete the situation, task or goal.

Example: “We, for free, moved them to SmartForce Express jus to they …
you know, to try to get them to go from Campus to MySmartForce.”

TKW Task Knowledge

1.) Understanding Roles: Self & Others
Demonstrating a clear understanding or ones job responsibilities in
comparison to that of others. The ability to distinguish who is responsible for
what … understanding what various groups and resources within the
organization are responsible for … understanding who does what.

Example: “Because that frees me up to do other things. And that’s what

we’re … that’s what they get paid to do,” “Their job is to handle technical
problems …,” “CSS handles these issues …”

2.) Understanding Objective(s)

Demonstrating a clear understanding of the goal, task or situation. This
would include defining the problem or issue the requires work. Respondent
defines, categorizes or details the situation in preparation to action.

Examples: “I conducted a needs analysis to …,” “I wanted to be sure I

understood what needed to be done.”

3.) Understanding Action

Demonstrating an understanding of work processes (self & other) required
to complete the objective. This would include understanding the behavioral
guidelines and organizational processes mandated by the organization (e.g.:
chain of command, hierarchy, reporting structure, escalation guidelines …)

169
 and organizational tools and technologies used to facilitate completion of
situation, goal or task.

Example: “… I tried Barry because I knew she worked for him,” “… we are
suppose to submit issues to technical support and then they escalate them,”
“… I mean I had to go to Product Communications first,” “the process that
we are suppose to follow is ….”, “… trying to find a document of the
SmartForce dot net (Smartforce.net) site.”

REL Relationship Awareness

1.) Resource Determination
1a.) Resource
Determination
Finding a personal
contact need to facilitate
the completion of the
situation, task or goal. This
could be formal: based
upon organization direction
(ie. Reporting structure or
team composition) or
informal. Determining the
best resource to address a
specific need.
1b.) Anonymity
The inability to
find/discover the
appropriate resource.
Name of critical resource is
not available … hidden
from subject. Subject does
not have name of direct
contact needed to complete
the objective.

Example: “I needed to find Example: “It was like a

a resource and I did,” “I’ve black hole ..”, “I didn’t
kind of latched onto know who to call …”
somebody over there at …”

2.) Bonds
Developing or using relationships with others to facilitate completion of a
situation, goal or task. Creating a champion within a critical area … someone
to do ones bidding. Calling buddies for help.

Example: “because I hand relationship with this person and this person knew
who I was …”, “I’ve established a good rapport with her …,” “I’ve kind of
latched onto somebody over there at … and have now found I’ve been more
successful in my dealings with Dublin …,” “ I have a contact over in Dublin
now.”

SEK Seeking Involvement

1.) Delegating/Escalating
Respondent follows formal processes to engage others to help in completing
situation, task or goal. Delegation involves appointing another to complete a
specific task or task component. Escalation involves understanding when

170
 required action exceeds personal capabilities and entrusting completion to
another with greater authority.

Example: “I haven’t done those … only because I’m trying to push them to
go to our Learning Services Group.

2.) Empowering
Respondent bestows ability within another to complete a situation task or
goal. Examples include train-the trainer sessions.

Example: “you know, I like to empower … I try to empower my customers as

much as possible …,” “I train my clients to do it themselves…”

3.) Approval/Acceptance
Getting approval (generally from clients) on plan prior to action. This would
include any effort to make clients and team members aware of what actions
one plans to take prior to acting. Ensuring buy-in or plan acceptance from
stakeholders or key players.

Examples: “… I got buy-in from the client before moving forward …,” “I
shared the options with them and let them decide …,” “The client agreed that
that was the best course of action.”

4.) Guidance
Understands personal limitations and seeks advice from another more
knowledgeable or competent.

Examples: “I called Michael because he is the technology manager …,” “I

knew Karen would know so I called her …”, “Technical support told me …”

MEX Managing Expectations

Respondent ensures that the client is aware of all possible outcomes.
Discusses options and potential outcomes with stakeholders.

Example: “We discussed the issue so they understood what needed to

happen”

ENACTMENT – TEAMMEMBER (advocacy)

PRE Presence
1.) Available/Accessible: The ability versus inability to be contacted or reached
to aid in problem resolution or completion of a task/goal
YES Î Available/Accessible NO Î Not
Available/Accessible
Team member is contactable Efforts to contact team are futile
Examples: “ … they were Examples: “… a kept emailing

171
 there when I called them …,” her but she would not return my
“He’s there when I need calls …,” “he told me the he
him…” never answers his phone …”

2.) Accountable: Accepting versus not accepting responsibility completion of a

task and the team as a whole
YES Î Accountable NO Î Not Accountable
Commitment/dedication on Member does not accept
the part of the team member responsibility to addressing
need.
Examples: “… my initial Examples: “He just laughed and
contact who said, ‘yeah, you said it wasn’t his responsibility
send me the information. I’ll to …”
make sure I get you the
answers,’” “… this person
has always gotten back to
me.”

3.) Responsive: Prompt versus delayed reaction or follow-up to a specified need

or request.
YES Î Responsive NO Î Not Responsive
Team member has a proper Team member delays or does
sense of urgency not response at all to specified
need
Examples: ) “… she called Examples: “She called me back
me right back,” “ … they got two weeks later …,” “I finally
back to me quickly,” “… she got Barry to make her respond
fixed the problem right to my questions …”
then …,” “… that person that
I got on the line was very
accommodating that way …”

CP Competent: Team member possesses expertise, knowledge, skills and/or

abilities needed to complete the job versus not having the ability.
YES Î Competent NO Î Not Competent
Team member is fully Team member lacks the
capability of addressing the necessary skills or knowledge to
need complete the situation, task or
goal.

Examples: ” … information Examples: “He had no idea

that he’s getting back to me is what was going on ..,”
specific on what the old “Technical support gave me
course was … he provided incorrect information …”
me the information on this,”

172
 “… he’s been able to get me
the answers …,” “… the
person I selected ran the
show just great.”

EM Empathetic: Understanding others feelings, situations and motives versus

not caring about respondent and their needs
YES Î Empathetic NO Î Not Empathetic
Team member hears and Team member dismisses what
understands when others are respondent is saying as
attempting to share pertinent irrelevant, untrue or
and/or vital information. unimportant.
Examples include listening
and sympathy
Examples: “ … he really Examples: “They never listen to
listened to what I said,” “… a thing we say …,” “He laughed
they felt sorry for me so …,” at my problem …”
“… they really understand
what it’s like.”

FAC Facilitator: Directing the person through the proper channels to help resolve
the situation, task or goal versus impeding efforts of respondent
YES Î Facilitator NO Î Not Facilitator
Team member is honest & Limiting what is shared with
forthright in communicating others … engaging in action
information versus which undermines progress
toward resolution of situation,
task or goal.
Examples: “… Well, now I Examples: “ … he didn’t tell me
have one person to funnel it the truth ..,” “She never
through …,” “I go to his escalated it to Development …”
individual and he directs me
to the appropriate people.”

173
 Appendix C: Interview Script

Interview Script: Virtual Effectiveness

Step 1: Introduction and Explanation

First, I’d like to start by thanking you in advance for your time. . Your contributions
to this research effort are greatly appreciated.

This study is part of a research program that should lead to better selection and
training for your job role. If we can identify the skills and abilities you use to do your
job, we can better select and training people for jobs like yours

Everything you say will be kept strictly confidential. Your interview data will be put
together with data from others I will be talking to. Our interview will take
approximately 1 ½ hour and will be recorded for educational purposes only. The
tape recorder is just to help me take notes. If there is anything sensitive you want to
say “Off The Record,” I’ll turn the recorder off.

Is this ok with you? [WAIT FOR RESPONSE]

During this time I will be asking you to share incidents (remote working situations)
which will allow me to better understand your job. These descriptive vignettes will
revolve around two types of situations
1. Times when you’ve felt effective as a virtual worker … working at a distance.
2. Times when you’ve felt least effective or ineffective as a virtual worker.
I will ask for several such events during our time together and will be sure to give
you ample time for thought and note taking before each event.

In sharing your story, please be sure to start at the beginning, giving me as much
detail as possible about your role within the virtual context. By detail, I mean what
were you thinking, feeling and doing at the time. [REPEAT … Again,]

We often have a tendency to be modest about are actions by using words like we and
us. This is not what is being looked for. I need to know about you. Thus, you should
tend to use words like I and me.

When telling your story, I should be able to visualize what

1. the outcome was … what happened
2. the participants involved …
3. your were doing, thinking, and feeling;

It should feel as if we were reading a script of a play or watching a good movie.

174
I may interject from time to time to help understand the particulars. Please, don’t let
this alarm you. Do you have any clarifying questions or concerns before we begin
[WAIT FOR RESPONSE]?

Great, I’ll begin recording now!

Step 2: Job responsibilities

1. What is the title of your present job?
2. How long have you worked for the company?
3. Who do you report to?(Supervisor title or position only)
4. Who reports to you? (Titles and positions only)
5. What are your major tasks or responsibilities? What do you actually do when
working virtually -- at a distance? (Prompt: Working remotely … within your
virtual context.)

Step 3: Behavior Events

Effective Situation
Now, I’d like to get a complete example of the kinds of things you do as a virtual employee.
Can you think of a specific time or situation that went particularly well for you, or you felt
particularly effective … a high point when working at a distance?
Check list
1. What was the situation?
2. Who was involved?
3. What did you think, feel, or want to do in the situation?
• How were you thinking about others or about the situation?
• What were you feeling?
• What did you want to do – what motivated you in this situation?
4. What did you actually do or say
5. What was the outcome? What happened?

* Note: Get the story in sequence. Short story should be very visual, like a video or movie.

Adequate Story
[YES] That’s exactly the kind of incident I’m looking for. Now, could you walk me
through it, starting at the very beginning, and continuing to the end, so that I can understand
what happened and in what order?

[NO] That’s a good start. What was the single most important step in the overall process?
What stands out for you as being most memorable? [PAUSE] Great! Now, could you walk
me through it, starting at the very beginning, and continuing to the end?

175
Ineffective Situation
That was great. Thank you! I’d like to shift and have you tell me about a situation when you
felt ineffective as a virtual employee. Think about a specific time or situation that went
particularly bad for you, or you felt particularly ineffective … a low point when working
remotely (at a distance)?
Check list
6. What was the situation?
7. Who was involved?
8. What did you think, feel, or want to do in the situation?
• How were you thinking about others or about the situation?
• What were you feeling?
• What did you want to do – what motivated you in this situation?
9. What did you actually do or say
10. What was the outcome? What happened?

* Note: Get the story in sequence. Short story should be very visual, like a video or movie.

Step 4: Characteristics Needed to Do the Virtual Job Well

The final thing I’d like to ask you is what characteristics, knowledge, skills or abilities you
think are needed to do your job? If you were hiring or training someone to do your job, what
would you look for? What do you need to be effective at doing your job?

Step 5: Conclusion and Summary

Thank you for your valuable time and information. It has been invaluable to helping us
understand the duties and responsibilities of the job. I’ll stop the tape now.

176
Appendix D: Aspects of Performance Differentiating Virtual
Team Performance Outcomes

Table4.1
Descriptive Statistics for the Aspects of Performance and Mann-Whitney Ua
Comparisons
Between the Effective and Ineffective Virtual Project Teams

Overall Effective Ineffective

(n=145) (n=77) (n=68)
Aspects of Effective
Performance Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Ub
Delivered Objectives 0.39 0.49 0.58 0.50 0.18 0.38 0.00 **
Teamwork 0.32 0.47 0.44 0.50 0.18 0.38 0.00 **
Psychological Needs 0.64 0.48 0.94 0.25 0.31 0.47 0.00 **
Individual Control 0.18 0.39 0.31 0.47 0.03 0.17 0.00 **
Turnaround 0.17 0.38 0.22 0.42 0.12 0.33 0.10
Work Customization 0.19 0.39 0.30 0.46 0.06 0.24 0.00 **
Timeliness 0.14 0.35 0.26 0.44 0.01 0.12 0.00 **
Fulfillment 0.16 0.37 0.30 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 **
Closure 0.44 0.50 0.62 0.49 0.24 0.43 0.00 **

Note:
a
Non-parametric comparisons.
b
Significance levels are based on two-tailed tests.
+ <.10, * p<.05, **
p<.01

177
 Appendix E: Proposed versus Actual Project Manager and
Team Member KSAs Required for Virtual Teamwork

Project Manager KSAs Required Virtual Teamwork

Actual KSAs
KSA Categories Proposed KSAs Actual KSAs (pos) (neg)
Interpersonal KSAs:
Collaborative Problem Planning Planning Client Partnering
Solving Client Partnering Client Partnering Determining
Team Member Partnering Delegation/Escalation Resources
Adaptability Approval
Determining Resources Guidance
Building Bonds
Delegation/Escalation
Empowering
Approval
Guidance

Communications Determining Resources Empathy Determining

Building Bonds Resources
Managing Expectations Managing
Empathy Expectations
Delegation/Escalation
Empowering
Approval
Guidance

Conflict Resolution None None None

Self-management KSAs:
Goal Setting & Self-Confidence Self-Confidence Self-Confidence
Performance Team Member Understanding Team Member
Management Confidence Objectives Confidence
Understanding Objectives Competence
Competence
Planning & Task Pre-work Pre-work Client Partnering
Coordination Planning Planning Determining Action
Client Partnering Client Partnering
Team Member Partnering Facilitation
Understanding Roles
Understanding Action
Facilitation

Team Member KSAs Required Virtual Teamwork

Actual KSAs
KSA Categories Propose KSAs Actual KSAs (neg)
Interpersonal KSAs: (pos)

178
 Collaborative Problem Availability None Availability
Solving Accountability Accountability
Responsiveness Responsiveness
Communications Availability None Availability
Accountability Accountability
Responsiveness Responsiveness
Empathy Empathy
Managing Expectations
Conflict Resolution None None None
Self-management KSAs:
Goal Setting & Competence None Competence
Performance
Management
Planning & Task Availability None Availability
Coordination Accountability Accountability
Responsiveness Responsiveness
Facilitation Facilitation

179
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an Understanding of Inequity. Journal of

Abnormal; and Social Psychology, LXVII, 422-436.

Applegate, L.JM. (1992). A Case Study in the Assimilation of Technology

Support for Teams. In Bostrom, R.P., Watson, R.T. and Kinney, S.T. (Eds.),

Computer Augmented Teamwork, A Guided Tour. New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold.

Armstrong, D.L. & Cole, P. (1995). Managing distances and differences in

geographically distributed work groups. In Jackson, S. and Ruderman, M. (Eds.),

Diversity in Work Teams: Research Paradigms for a Changing Workplace (pp. 187-

215). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Atkinson, J.W. (Ed.). (1958). Motives in fantasy, action, and society: A

method of assessment and study. New York: D. and Nostrand.

Bailey, K.D. (1994). Methods of Social Research, fourth Edition. New York:

Free Press.

Bal, J. & Foster , P. (2000). Managing the virtual team and controlling

effectiveness. International Journal of Production Research, 38(17), 4019-4032.

Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions

and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Bell, B.S. and Kozlowski, S.W.J (2002). A typology of virtual teams:

Implications for effective leadership. Group and Organization Management, 27(1),

14-49.

180
 Bjorn-Anderson, N. and Turner, J. (1994). Creating the 21 Century

Organisation: The Metamorphosis of Octicon. In Baskerville, R. (Ed.), Transforming

Organizations with Information Technology (pp. 379-394). Amsterdam: North-

Holland.

Boyatzis, R. E., Cowen S. S., & Kolb, D. A. (1995). Innovations in

Professional Education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Boyatzis, R.E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective

performance. New York: John Wiley.

Boyatzis, R.E. (1998). Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic

Analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Brockner, J. & Siegel, P.A. (1996). Understanding the interaction between

procedural and distributive justice: The role of trust. In Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R.

(Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (Pp. 390-413).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brotsis, J. E. (1990). The impacts of the Intranet on work and the individual:

A case study analysis (Doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional

Psychology at Alameda, 1999). UMI Dissertation Services, 9929403.

Bullis, C. & Bach, B.W. (1991). An Explication and test of communication

network content and multiplexity as predictors of organizational identification.

Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55(2), 180-197.

Burris, B. (1998). Computerization of the workforce. Annual Review of

Sociology, 24, 141-157.

181
 Campion, M. and Mdesker, G. (1993). Relations between work group

characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups.

Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.

Caudron, A. (1992). Working at home pays off. Personnel Journal,

November, 40-49.

Cofer, Charles N. & Appley, Mortimer H. (1964). Motivation: Theory and

Research. New York: Whiley.

Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group

effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of

Management, 23, 239-290.

Corson, D.L. & Enz, C.A. (1999). Predicting psychological empowerment

among service workers: the effect of support-based relationships. Human Relations,

52(2), 205-224.

Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing

Among Five Traditions. London, New Delhi, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.

Crisp, Brad C., Control Enactment in Global Virtual Teams, 2002

Cummings, T.G. (1978). Self-regulating work groups: A socio-technical

synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 3, 625-634.

Daft, R. and Lengel, R. (1986). Organizational information requirements,

media richness, and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554-572.

182
 Das, T.K. & Teng, B. (1998). Between thrust and control: developing

confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23,

491-512.

Davidow, W.H. and Malone, M.S. (1992). The Virtual Corporation. New

York: Edward Burlingame Books/Harper Business.

Davis, L.E.; Wacker, G.L. (1987). Job design. In Salvendy, G. (Ed.),

Handbook of human factors (pp. 431-452). New York: Wiley.

DeSanctis, G. and Monge, P. (1999). Introduction to the Special Issue:

Communication Processes for Virtual Organizations. Organization Science, 10(6),

693-703.

DeSanctis, G., Staudenmayer, N. and Wong, S.S. (1999). Interdependence in

Virtual Organizations. In Cooper, C.L. and Rousseau, D.M.(Eds.), Trends in

Organizational Behavior (pp. 81-104). Wiley & Sons, Ltd..

DiMartino, V. & Wirth, L. (1990).Telework: a new way of working and

living. International Labour Review, 129(5), 520-554.

Druskat, V. U. (1996). A team competency study of self-managed

manufacturing teams (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University 1996).

Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (forth coming). Managing from the

boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of

Management Journal.

Edmondson. A.C. (1986). Learning from mistakes is easier said than done:

Group and organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error.

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 5-28.

183
 Eisenberg, E.M., Monge, P.R. & Miller, K.I. (1983). Involvement in

communication networks as a predictor of organizational commitment. Human

Communication Research, 10(2), 179-201.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Agency theory. An assessment and review.

Academy of Management Review, 14, 57-74.

Flanagan, J.C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin,

51(4), 237-257.

Ford, R.C. & McLaughlin, F. (1995). Questions and answers about

telecommuting. Business Horizons, 38(3), 66-72.

Fuehrer, E. & Ashkanasy, N. (1999, August). Communicating trust in the

inter-organizational virtual organization. Paper presented at the annual Academy of

Management Conference, Chicago, IL.

Fulk, J., and Boyd, B. (1991). Emerging Theories of Communication in

Organizations. Journal of Management 17(2), 407- 446.

Furst, S. Reeves, M., Rosen, B., and Blackburn, R. (2003, August). Managing

the Life Cycle of Virtual Teams. Paper presented at the annual Academy of

Management Conference, Seattle, WA.

Furst, S., Blackburn, R. and Rosen, M. (1999). Virtual team effectiveness: a

proposed research agenda. Information Systems Journal, 9, 249-269.

Gallivan, M. J. (2001). Striking a balance between trust and control in a

virtual organization: a content analysis of open source software case studies. Info

Systems Journal, 11, 277-304.

184
 Gladstein, D.L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group

effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday,

New York: NY.

Gorton, I. & Motwani, S. (1996). Issues in co-operative software engineering

using globally distributed team. Information and Software Technology, 38. 647-655.

Guzzo, R.A. and Shea, G.P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup

relations in organizations. In Dunnette MD, Hough LM (Eds.), Handbook of

industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 269-313). Palo Alto:

Consulting Psychologists Press.

Guzzo, R.A.. (1986). Group decision making and group effectiveness in

organizations. In Goodman, P. (Ed.), Designing Effective Work Groups (pp. 34-71).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hackman, J. R (Ed.). (1990). Groups That Work (and Those That Don’t. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R., (1974). Development of the job diagnostic

survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159-170.

Hackman, J.R. (1987). The design of work teams. In Lorsch J.W. (Ed.),

Handbook of organizational behavior (pp.315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

185
 Hackman, J.R. and Walton, R.E. (1986). Leading groups in organization. In

Goodman , P.S. (Ed.), Designing effective work groups (pp.72-119). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Hart, R. K. B. (2002). The conversation of relationships: The communication

content and quality of strong and weak relationships in geographically dispersed

teams (Doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University 2002).

Hart, R.K. and McLeod, P.L. (2003, August). Personal Relationships in

Geographically Dispersed Work Teams: Leading Through Everyday Communication.

Paper presented at the Academy of Management Symposium on Leading in Virtual

Teams, Seattle, WA.

Hartman, R.I.; Stoner, C.R.; and Arora, R. (1992), Developing successful

organizational telecommuting arrangements: worker perceptions and managerial

prescriptions, SAM Advanced Management Journal, 57(3), 35-42.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York:

Wiley.

Henderson, M.A. & Argyle, M. (1985). Social support by four categories of

work colleagues: Relationships between activities, stress and satisfaction. Journal of

Occupational Behaviour, 6(3), 229-239.

Holton, J. (2001). Building trust and collaboration in a virtual team. Team

Performance Management: An International Journal, 7(34), 36-47.

Huber, G.P. (1990) A theory of the effects of advanced information

technologies on organizational design, intelligence, and decision making. Academy

of Management Review, 15, 47-71.

186
 Janis, I.L (1982) Groupthink. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Jarillo, J.C. (1993). Strategic Networks: Creating the Borderless

Organization. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Jarvenpaa, S., Knoll, K., and Leidner, D. (1998). Is Anybody Out there:

Antecedents of Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Journal of Management Information

Systems, 14(4), 29-64.

Johnson, P., Heimann, V., and O’Neil, K. (2001). The “wonderland’ of

virtual teams. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(1), 24-29.

Jones, E.E., & Harris, V.A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1-24.

Kayworth, T. and Leidner, D. (2000). The Global Virtual Manager: A

Prescription for Success. European Management Journal, 18(2). 183-194.

Kayworth, T. and Leidner, D. (2002). Leadership effectiveness in global

virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3). 7-40.

Kelly, H.H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In Levine, D.

(Ed.), Nebraska symposium of motivation ( Vol. 2, pp. 219-240). Lincoln: University

of Nebraska Press.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of

learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kozlowski, S.W.J., Gully, S.M., Nason, E.R., and Smith, E.M. (1999).

Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels

and time. In D.R. Ilgen and E.D. Pulkos (Eds.), The changing nature of work and

187
performance: Implications for staffing, personnel actions, and development. (SIOP

Frontiers Series) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kram, K.E. & Isabella, L.A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: the role of peer

relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 110-

132.

Kramer, R.M. & Tyler, T.R. (1996). Trust in Organization. Frontiers of

Theory and Research. Sage Publications, thousand Oaks, CA.

Kraut, R.; Steinfield, C.; Chan, A.P.; Butler, B.; and Hog, A. (1998).

Coordination and virtualization through electronic networks: empirical evidence

from forum industries. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications, (3:4).

Kraut, R.E. (1989). Telecommuting: the trade-offs of home work. Journal of

Communication, 39(3), 19-47.

Lawler & Porter (1967). The Effect of Performance on Job Satisfaction.

Industrial Relations, VII (October, 1967). Pp. 23.

Lawler & Porter (1967). Antecedent Attitudes of Effective Managerial

Performance, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, II (May, 1967), p.

122.

Lipnack, J. and Stamp, J. (1997). Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space,

Time and Organisations with Technology. London: John Wiley and Sons.

Lockett, A.G. and Holland, C.P. (1996). The formation of a virtual global

bank. European Journal of IS, 5, 131-140.

Lurey, J. S., & Raisinghani, M. S. (2001). An empirical study of best

practices in virtual teams. Information & Management, 38, 523-544.

188
 Lurey, J.S. (1998). A Study of Best Practices in Designing and Supporting

Effective Virtual Teams (Doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional

Psychology 1998).

Mackie-Lewis, S. A. (1998). Changing place and time of work: The impact

of telecommunicating on employees’ personal networks and psychological well-

being (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1998). UMI Dissertation

Services, 9840682.

Majchrzak, A. (1988). The human side of factory automation. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

McClelland, D.C. & Daily, C. (1972). Improving officer selection for the

foreign service. Boston: Mcber & Company.

McClelland, D.C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: D. Van

Nostrand.

McClelland, D.C. (1985). Human motivation. Blenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

McGrath, J.E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Meyerson, D., Weich, K.E., and Kramer, R.P. (1996). Swift trust and

temporary groups. In Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (eds.), Trust in Organizations:

Frontiers of Theory and Research (Pp. 166-195). Sage Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An

Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.

189
 Moreland, R.L. & Levine, J.M. (1992). Newcomers and oldtimers in groups.

In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence, Second Edition (pp. 143-186).

Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.

Motowidlo, S.J., Carter, G.W., Dunnett, M.D., Tippins, N., Werner, S.,

Burnett, J.R., Vaughan, M.J. (1992). Studies of the structured behavioral interview.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 571-587.

Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Vogle, D.R., and

Balthazard, P.A.. (1997). Lessons from a Dozen Years of Group Support Systems

Research: A Discussion of Lab and Field Findings. Journal of MIS, 13(3), 163-207.

Olson, M.H. & Primps, S.B. (1984). Working at home with computers:

w3ork and non-work issues. Journal of Social Issues, 40(3), 97-112.

Orlikowski, J.W. (1996). Evolving with Notes: Organisational Change

around GroupWare Technology. In Ciborra, C. (Ed.), GroupWare and Teamwork

Invisible Aid or Hindrance? (Pp. 23-30). Chichester: Wiley.

Pasmore, W.; Francis, C, Haldeman, J. (1982). Sociotechnical systems: A

North American reflection on empirical studies of the seventies. Human Relations,

35, 1179-1204.

Pauleen, D. & Yoong, P. (2001). Facilitating virtual team relationships via

Internet and conventional communications channels. Internet Research: Electronic

Networking Applications and Policy, 11(3). 190-202.

Pawar, K. & Sharifi, S. (1997). Physical or virtual team collocation: Does it

matter? International Journal of Production Economics, 52, 283-290.

190
 Potter, R. and Balthazard, P. (2002). Virtual team interaction styles:

assessment and effects. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56, 423-

443.

Potter, R., Balthazard, P. and Cooke, R. (2000). Virtual team interaction:

assessment, consequences, and management. Team Performance Management: An

International Journal, 6(78). 131-137.

Qureshi, S. (1998). Supporting a Network Way of Working on an Electronic

Social Space. Group Decision and Negotiation, 7, 399-416.

Qureshi, S., & Vogel, D. (2001). Adaptiveness in virtual teams:

Organizational challenges and research directions. Group Decision and Negotiation,

10, 27-46.

Raghuram, S., Garud, R., Wiesenfeld, B., & Gupta V. (2001). Factors

contributing to virtual work adjustment. Journal of Management, 27, 383-405.

Ragin, C.C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving beyond qualitative

and quantitative strategies. University of California Press.

Reily, R.R. & Chao, G.T. (1982). Validity and fairness of some alternative

employee selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 35, 1-62.

Robey, D., Khoo, H.M., and Powers, C. (1999). Situated Learning in Cross-

Functional Virtual Teams. Prepared for submission to the joint special issue of IEEE

Transactions on Professional Communication and STC’s Technical Communications.

Roethlisberger, F.J., & Dickson, W.J. (1939). Management and the worker.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

191
 Ronan, W.W. & Latham, G.P. (1974). The reliability and validity of the

critical incident technique: A closer look. Studies in Personnel Psychology, 6, 53-64.

Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings. In L.

Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10 Pp. 173-220).

New York: Academic.

Safizadeh, M.H. (1991). The case of workgroups in manufacturing operations.

California Management Review, 33, 61-82.

Schmitt, N., Gooding, R.Z., Noe, R.A., & Kirsch, M. (1984). Meta-analysis

of validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study

characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 37, 407-422.

Scott, K.D. & Townsend, A.M. (1994). Teams: Why some succeed and other

fail. HR Magazine, 39(8), 62-67.

Seiling, J. G. (2001). The Meaning and Role of Organizational Advocacy.

Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books.

Shamir, R. & Salomon, I. (1985). Work-at-home and the quality of working

life. Academy of Management Review, 10(3). 455-464.

Shea, G.P. & Guzzo, R.A. (1987). Groups as human resources. In Rowland,

K.M. and Ferris, G.R. (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource

management (Vol. 1, Pp. 323-356). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Smith, C.P. (1992). Reliability issues. In C.P. Smith, J.W. Atkinson, D.C.

McClelland, and J. Veroff (Eds.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic

content analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

192
 Sproull, H.A. and Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections, New Ways of Working in

the Networked Organisation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Steiner, I.D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic

Press.

Stevens, M. and Campion, M. (1994). The Knowledge, Skill and Ability

Requirements for Teamwork: Implications for Human Resource Management.

Journal of Management, 20(2), 501-530.

Stevens, M. and Campion, M. (1999). Staffing work teams: Development and

validation of a selection test for teamwork settings. Journal of Management, 25(2),

207-228.

Stough, S., Eom, S. and Buckenmyer, J. (2000) Virtual teaming: a strategy

for moving your organization into the new millennium. Industrial Management and

Data Systems, 100(8). 370-378.

Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research:

Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.

Sundstrom, E.; Me Meuse, K.P.; and Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams:

Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120-133.

Tett, R.P., Jackson, D.N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as

predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44,

703-742.

Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in Action. New York, McGraw Hill.

Tjosvold, D. and Field, R.H.G. (1983). Effects of social context on consensus

and majority vote decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 500-506.

193
 Townsend, A., Demarie, S. and Hendrickson, A (1998). Virtual teams:

Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive,

12(3), 17-29.

Van de Ven, A.H., Delbecq, A.L., & Koening, R. (1976). Determinants of

coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41, 322-

328.

Vinokur-Kaplan, D. (1995). Treatment teams that work (and those that don’t):

an application of Hackman’s group effectiveness model to interdisciplinary teams in

psychiatric hospitals. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31, 303-327.

Vroom, V. and Yetton, P. (1973) Leadership and Decision Making.

University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.

Walton, R.E. (1972). How to counter alienation in the plant. Harvard

Business Review, 50(6), 70-81.

Warkentin, M., Sayeed, L. and Hightower, R. (1997). Virtual Teams versus

Face-to-Face Teams: An Exploratory Study of a Web-based Conference System.

Decision Sciences, 28(4), 975-996.

Weems, V. L. (2001). Virtual Work Effectiveness. Unpublished manuscript.

Case Western Reserve University.

Weiss, J.M. (1994). Telecommuting boosts employee output. HR Magazine,

39(2), 51-53.

Wong, S. and Burton, R. (2000). Virtual Teams: What are their

Characteristics, and Impact on Team Performances? Computational & Mathematical

Organization Theory 6, 339-360.

194
 Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage

Publications, Thousand Oaks.

Zucker, L.G. (1986). Production of trust. Institutional sources of economic

structure. In Staw, B.M. & Cummings, L.L. (Eds.), Research in Organizational

Behavior (Pp. 53-111). Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press.

195