Peter, teams are an important part of the workplace, and we need t.docx

Peter, teams are an important part of the workplace, and we
need to understand group dynamics, because there are a lot of
things that happen-- like time is wasted in meetings, and many
other things. Why do we need to understand group dynamics?
Well, as you rightly say, groups are being used a lot in
organization, whether it's teams, projects, whether it's just
getting people together in a meeting. And the people who are
conducting these meetings or running these groups or leading
these teams really need to understand how it is that groups
function, so that they are able to actually do things to make sure
the groups function as well as possible. I mean, you've really
got to understand the levers and the gears of how groups work if
you're going to be able to pull and manipulate those levers and
gears.
I've found that the vast majority of people have practically no
understanding of group dynamics whatsoever. So they know that
something is wrong, you know-- this group isn't working well,
or this team isn't functioning-- but they've got no idea, really,
how to do something about it, except let's get a consultant in,
which is not necessarily the best way at all.
So what are group dynamics, and how do you understand them?
OK. The key to understanding group dynamics is to make a
distinction between content and process. Let's say a group of
people are getting together in a meeting, so we have a group.
And let's say they are trying to solve, for example, a technical
problem. Now the content there is, what is the technical
problem? How do we change this particular production process,
or whatever it is. That's the content.
There is another channel, if you would-- it's a bit like watching
television and switching channels. There's another channel that
you can go to, that you can switch to, and that's called the
process. And this really looks at how is this group working? Not
what is it working on, but how is the group working together?
And that's what we mean by group dynamics. The group

dynamics are how. The process of how a group is working
together.
And it's terribly important to actually try and understand that,
because as I said, if you can understand that, you then can know
what it is that you need to do to try and improve the group
dynamics, to make the group work more effectively.
So what are the main elements of group dynamics?
Well, the first thing that you have to do is you have to be a very
good observers, and that's very difficult for people.
Even if you're running the meeting?
Even if you're running the meeting. And this is very difficult,
because, for example, going back to that example of a group of
people trying to solve a technical problem, very often the
person running the meeting may very well be a team leader or a
technical expert him or herself. So they'll be very much wanting
to get into the technical aspect-- the what. The content.
So to go back to the television analogy, they'll be wanting to
stay on that particular channel. The reality is, you have to be
very good at sometimes being able to watch both channels at the
same time. And, in fact, you often hear the expression, you have
to be a participant and observer at the same time. You have to
participate in the problem solving session, and at the same time,
you have to have the ability to kind of step back and observe
what is happening at that second level of how the group is
working.
So that's the first thing. You have to be really able to tune into
the what and the how.
Now, the question is, what are some of the aspects of the how?
What are some elements of group dynamics? And really, there's
a number of them. First of all, there are things like, are the
goals of the group clearly understood? Does everyone in the
group know what the goals are, and what it is that we're trying
to achieve, and are they all committed to it? Secondly, how well
do group members communicate with one another? Do they
communicate honestly and openly with one another or not?
Thirdly, how well are the leadership functions shared among the

group? Now, by leadership, I mean things like, if something
goes wrong, do we all just turn to the person sharing and let him
or her deal with it, or do we all take some responsibility for the
leadership function? That's one aspect of group dynamics.
How do we make decisions? Do we always go for voting? Do
we try and use consensus? Do we just say, well, you make up
your own mind? So do we get committed to decisions once
they're made? That's a very important aspect of group dynamics.
What about conflict?
Well, how do we deal with conflict? Do we typically avoid
conflict? Do we typically just get into shouting matches with
one another? How well do we actually deal with and manage
conflict? Very important element of group dynamics. And what
are some of the group norms?
What do you mean by group norms?
OK. Group norms are some of the unwritten rules about how we
behave in the group.
That can be quite frightening, can't it, for a new person entering
the group who doesn't know the group norms.
Well, you usually get inculturated very quickly. Somebody will
kind of take you aside and say, now listen, this is how it works
around here. You never criticize Fred. Or the subject is taboo.
These are some of the rules.
Another example of a group norm which I've seen many, many
times in teams is this often unwritten rule that we look after
ourselves first. We always kind of try and save our patch. So
that if there's anything happening in the organization, even if
it's a restructure or change in resources, we always make sure
that we're being looked after first. This could also be one of the
group norms.
How do we encourage creativity? Do we encourage creativity?
How do we learn in this particular group? Are we interested in
learning? Do we encourage learning? So there are some
examples of group norms.
Two final ones. Two final aspects of group dynamics. What's
the group cohesion like? Do we have a feeling of belonging to

this group, or do we actually not feel that we belong to this
group? That's an element.
And finally, how do we deal with problems in the group? Do we
acknowledge them and deal with them? Do we have a
mechanism for dealing with them, or do we kind of sweep them
under the carpet?
I'd like to look at the ways in which we influence group
dynamics, and take it from the point of view of whether we're a
leader or one of the members of the group.
Yeah. Well, first of all, as I said before, you have to be very
good at having this dual channel ability. You have to be able to
work at the content level, but also observe what is going on. If
you can't observe what is going on, you're not going to be able
to influence the group dynamics and make that group work
better. So stay tuned to both channels.
Have you got any examples of where you've stayed tuned to
both channels, and something's gone really astray in one?
Oh, sure. I guess I'm fairly lucky, because as a psychologist,
I've been trained very much. And if anything, I have a bias to
wanting to stay tuned at the process level, and I sometimes lose
the content level.
But, I mean, I've often been in groups, for example, where the
group might be trying to make a decision, or solve a problem,
and the content issue's terribly interesting-- a technical issue, or
a marketing issue, or a product development issue, and we want
to talk about that. But if the group's not working well, it's
important to be able to see that second level, to see what's
happening.
Now, it may be that it's as simple as making what's called a
process observation. In other words, offering the group an
observation of what it is that you're seeing. Now it might be
something like, look, I just want to make an observation here.
I'm noticing that Fred and Mary are doing a lot of the talking
here, and all of you over here are not contributing to this
discussion at all. Now, can you see, you're making an
observation about one of the group dynamics, which is the

participation level of the group?
Now, the group may not be aware of that, because they may
have got so caught up with the technical issue. And all of a
sudden, when you make this process observation, people kind of
stop and look around and they go, that's right. Now, just the fact
of having made that process observation in itself might trigger a
change, because all of a sudden, Maria over here might say,
yeah, actually, that's right. Look, my view is blah blah blah.
Blah. And all of a sudden, the whole pattern changes and
everybody starts contributing.
Another example of a process observation might be that once
again, there's a very passionate discussion going on, and you
might say, look, I've just observed that really, we seem to be
getting very bogged down on this particular problem. We've
only got 20 minutes left, and we really haven't dealt with these
three other issues. Now, that's making a process observation of
how well we are solving the various problems on our agenda.
Now, once again, just making that observation may be enough
to trigger some change.
It may be that you make a process observation around the mood
of the group. You might say something like, look, it's very
interesting. We were very excited and passionate talking about
option A, but while we're talking about option B, or whatever it
is, I'm just noticing that everybody seems to be really flat and
very low energy. Does this say something?
Now, once again, just making that observation, people might go,
yeah, gee, that's right. What does that say? Maybe that says that
we should be going for option A and not option B.
So it really moves them.
Well, you're moving them because what you're doing is you're
changing channels, and you're making a comment or an
observation about something that usually, people are not aware
of, because they're so focused on the technical discussion-- on
the content. They're kind of not really aware of what's
happening at that second level of process.
A lot of this discussion about the group dynamic centers around

what is happening within a group, usually within a meeting. But
can this be happening, say, in a group sitting in an open plan
office, or, more currently, a virtual team who may be split
geographically?
Well, it can, although it clearly is a lot more difficult to be able
to make those observations, particularly if we're talking about a
virtual team where you aren't really able to see so much what is
going on. So I think the more dispersed the group is, the harder
it is to actually see.
The other thing is, the more dispersed the group is, generally
speaking, the more fragmented the group dynamics are anyway,
because you don't really have a kind of a group working
together. So the answer there is kind of yes and no.
I've said that a really good technique is to make an observation,
and that in itself can trigger some change. Sometimes you have
to be a little bit more proactive than that. You might make an
observation, but actually make a suggestion for how the group
can change how it works. So you might say, look, I've noticed
that only Fred and Jim are contributing to this. I'd really like to
hear from Marie or Stephano. So you can actually make some
suggestions about how the group dynamics can change.
That's a slightly more proactive leading kind of technique, but it
may be useful. The group may not necessarily like it, but very
often, if it's made in a constructive and positive way-- not
trying to put anyone down or alienate somebody-- the group will
really welcome this kind of contribution, and it can really help
the group to move to a better level of functioning.
Peter, if I'm in a group, and there are subsets within the group,
or little cliques, which can be very destructive, how do I deal
with that, if I'm aware of that? And it's not during a meeting,
it's just the way in which this group dynamics is working. What
can I do about it?
Well, it may be that you don't make a comment in front of the
whole group. It may be appropriate to actually go and talk to
either the subgroup, or it might even be one individual person. I
mean, very often, in a group situation, one person is behaving in

a way that is actually harming the process of the group. So it
may be appropriate to approach the individual or the subgroup
and give them some feedback.
What's terribly important, though, is to be constructive, to be
very, very specific, to explain the consequences of their
behavior, to make some positive suggestions about how they can
change to ensure that they agree that they've got commitment,
and then to monitor how they go afterwards and give them some
feedback if they in fact change, and to observe that the group is
working better.
Peter, finally, have you could any tips about how we can learn
and understand more about group dynamics?
Yeah. I think what's a very useful training tool is to either
maybe watch a video of a meeting, or to go in and watch groups
actually functioning where you are not necessarily part of the
group or involved in the technical issue. In other words, where
you could go in there and just observe, and you don't have any
particular vested interest in the issue. And what that allows you
to do is only focus on channel two, not channel one, to go back
to my television analogy.
You might, for example, want to take in a checklist of the group
dynamics that I've mentioned. So, for example, when you say
are the goals clear? What's participation like? How do we
handle conflict? What are the group norms? Is there high group
cohesion?
You go in with a list--
That's a great idea.
And this provides you with a checklist to help you observe.
Now, what'll happen is, after a while, you'll start getting good
at it. Really nice thing to do also is do it with somebody else,
and then afterwards, you can actually have a discussion-- well,
what did you observe? Because what you observed may be
different from what the other person observed. So that's a very
simple and useful training tool, or training technique, to really
help you develop the skills of understanding group dynamics

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT
Page 1© University of Phoenix 2015 MGT/312: Influence,
Power, and Trust
ID: 02-VIDEO-54fdd864dd7dc9930f4a9585
MGT/312: Influence, Power, and Trust
RECORDED ON
Jun 25, 2015
MGT312 Influence, Power, and Trust
Transcript
Speakers: Angelo Kinicki, Ph.D.
ANGELO KINICKI, PH.D.: Hi. I’m Dr. Angelo Kinicki. Do you
know the number one reason
why CEOs get fired by their boards of directors? I bet you
don’t. It’s the inability to handle
nonperforming direct reports. And the number two reason is the
inability to execute.
I bet you thought that the number one reason was lack of profits
or unethical behavior. It’s
not. What it really comes down to is influence skills. It’s the
influence skills that you’re going
to learn about in your readings for this week. You are going to
learn how people can
influence others and you know, we influence people all the day

of our lives at home, at
work, at church, in stores. Influence is a fundamental OB skill.
You will understand how that
works.
You’re also going to learn about what makes a great team. We
all know from watching
sports that there are some good teams, some better teams, and
some great teams. The
same is true to work as well as it is at school. You will learn the
characteristics of high
performing teams. You will learn how you can take those
characteristics and use them in
the teams that you are involved with. You are going to learn one
other thing that I find is
really important the older I get and that is trust, the trust
between people.
What we all know – you know this – it’s the trust between
people that drives the extra effort
that we give to each other in the tasks that we’re working on.
You will learn what creates
trust and how trust gets ruined. And I want to give you one
example of persuasion and
influence that we find when we travel and that is the little signs
that you find in your hotel
rooms where they ask you to reuse your towels.
Now years ago they didn’t have those signs and they would
maybe ask us at check-in to
reuse the towels and nobody did. What research showed is when
you make a little sign
that says if you will please reuse because it saves this amount of

water and saving that
amount of water has this positive impact on our planet, that
people are more willing to do it.
Persuasion and influence are very important skills. The more
that you can master them, the
better you will be in both your personal and professional life.
[End of Audio]
ENHANCING EFFECTIVENESS
ON VIRTUAL TEAMS
Understanding Why Traditional Team
Skills Are Insufficient
Gregory R. Berry
Central Connecticut State University
Virtual team interactions are almost always assisted by some
form of computer-mediated communica-
tion technology. Computer-mediated communication is different
in many ways from traditional face-
to-face communication, perhaps most significantly because the
communication is usually asynchronous
instead of synchronous. Temporal independence of
communication changes the patterns of work,
decision making, and understandings about the work and the
relationships between the individuals
involved in the work. As a consequence, managing virtual teams
is different and more complex than
managing face-to-face teams, yet virtual teams are still groups
of individuals that share most of the

characteristics and dynamics found on traditional teams. The
effective management of virtual teams
requires knowledge and understanding of the fundamental
principles of team dynamics regardless of
the time, space, and communication differences between virtual
and face-to-face work environments.
Keywords: virtual teams; virtual work; team effectiveness;
asynchronous communication
Teams and teamwork are a ubiquitous part of getting work done
in almost
every organization (Hackman, 2002). Generically, a team is a
group of
individuals who interact interdependently and who are brought
together or
come together voluntarily to achieve certain outcomes or
accomplish par-
ticular tasks. Some research claims that the use of teams
increases capabil-
ity, responsiveness, and flexibility within organizations
(Griffith, Sawyer,
& Neale, 2003; Maynard, 2006) partly because synergies are
created among
team members who have different types of expertise,
experience, or knowl-
edge (Grimshaw & Kwok, 1998; Klein & Kleinhanns, 2003).
The increased
use of teams in organizations is encouraged, in part, by
computer-mediated
Gregory R. Berry (PhD, University of Alberta, 1997) currently
teaches at Central Connecticut State
University. His research focuses on environmental management,
online teaching and learning, and
Service Learning/Engaged Learning. Corresponding concerning

this article should be addressed to
Gregory R. Berry, Vance Academic Center, Central Connecticut
State University, New Britain, CT
06050-4010; e-mail: [email protected] .edu.
Journal of Business Communication, Volume 48, Number 2,
April 2011 186-206
DOI: 10.1177/0021943610397270
© 2011 by the Association for Business Communication
Berry / ENHANCING EFFECTIVENESS ON VIRTUAL
TEAMS 187
communication technologies, which has profoundly changed
how organi-
zational members collect and distribute data and has also
changed the
dynamics and relationships between organizational members
(Flanagin &
Waldeck, 2004). Computer-mediated communication
technologies also
enable organizations or groups to use virtual or networked
teams (May &
Gueldenzoph, 2006).
WHAT ARE VIRTUAL TEAMS?
Virtual teams can use computer-mediated communication
technologies
to work interdependently across space, time, and organizational
boundar-
ies (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Lipnack & Stamps, 2000). Virtual
team
members may be located across the office, but almost as easily

across the
country or across the world, and may rarely or perhaps never
meet face to
face. Townsend, DeMarie, and Hendrickson (1998) characterize
virtual
teams as “groups of geographically and/or organizationally
dispersed
coworkers that are assembled using a combination of
telecommunications
and information technologies to accomplish an organizational
task” (p. 18).
Virtual teams are not required to use computer-mediated
communication
technologies, but this is typical given the near-universalistic
nature of
computer-mediated communication systems in organizations.
Significantly,
the use of technology alone does not make a team virtual.
Almost all teams
use technology to some degree, but virtuality increases as the
degree of
reliance on electronic communication increases. Geographically
dispersed
teams often have no choice except to communicate
electronically, even
though some individual team members may strongly prefer face-
to-face
interaction (Cohen & Gibson, 2003).
A virtual team has the following six attributes, sharing the first
four
with almost all teams:
• The team usually but not always has a definable and
limited membership, and
there is awareness by team members of this shared membership,

and even if
membership changes somewhat the team remains intact
(Alderfer, 1987).
• The members of the team function interdependently,
usually with a shared
sense of purpose that is either given to them or constructed by
the team
itself (Alderfer, 1987).
• The members of the team are jointly responsible for
outcomes (Hackman,
1987).
• The members of the team collectively manage their
relationships across
(and perhaps between) organizational boundaries (Hackman,
1987).
188 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
• The members of the team may be geographically dispersed
(Johnson,
Chanidprapa, Yoon, Berrett & LaFleur, 2003).
• The members of the team predominately rely on computer-
mediated com-
munication rather than face-to-face communication to
accomplish their
tasks (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000).
A team that does most of its work through use of the telephone,
e-mail,
electronic bulletin boards, chat groups, electronic databases, or

teleconfer-
ences, and rarely if ever meets face to face, is more virtual than
a team that
meets regularly face to face, even if both teams use exactly the
same tech-
nologies to some extent in doing their work. The degree to
which a team
is virtual is a complex and multidimensional construct (Gibson
& Cohen,
2003), with the major determinant of virtualness simply being
the amount
of time that members spend working thorough computer-
mediated com-
munication instead of face-to-face communication. The highest
degree of
virtuality is when all members work apart from each other in
distant loca-
tions and only communicate and interact through computer-
mediated com-
munication or other distance communication technologies
(Kirkham, Rosen,
Gibson, Tesluk, & McPherson, 2002). An example of very
limited virtual-
ness may be a single office where files are sent across the office
elec-
tronically for further work by another in the same office, yet
face-to-face
communication is available almost without restriction if needed
or wanted.
An advantage of virtual teams is that team members are able to
commu-
nicate, collaborate, and create outputs irrespective of time and
space,
because they are not bound by temporal constraints or
geographic location
as are most face-to-face teams.

The highest degree of virtuality is
when all members work apart from
each other in distant locations and
only communicate and interact
through computer-mediated communi-
cation or other distance communica-
tion technologies.
Virtual team members must communicate and collaborate to
problem
solve, to continue the work process, and to produce a product or
service,
TEAMS 189
just as any team does (Thomas, 2007). However, choosing the
most effec-
tive or efficient communication technology for these
interactions is not a
simple process and is dependent on factors such as the nature
and type of
team, the team’s task, the team members’ access to technology
(Duarte &
Snyder, 2001), or even the sophistication and experience of
team leaders
or team members in doing virtual work.
Interdisciplinary team members (virtual or not) deal with the
pull of
competing loyalties and demands. One advantage of having
interdisci-
plinary teams, including geographically dispersed teams, is that

different
opinions and perspectives are represented within the team and
thus greater
organizational learning and synergy are possible because of this
added
diversity. Making sense of another’s beliefs or actions is a
constant strug-
gle in any team environment (Guribye, Andressen, & Wasson,
2003) and
this difficulty can be exacerbated in the virtual environment
because of the
potential for greater diversity of the team. Yet, as noted by
Jameson (2007),
components of cultural identity are often hidden in mediated
encounters
unless intentionally revealed.
Shared goals and shared understandings are required on any
team, and
negotiation of these common goals is an intrinsic part of the
team-building
process. Effective social relationships are a required constant
for effective
collaborative work, virtual or face to face. Overall, social
information
exchange is similar in both virtual and face-to-face
communication although
the computer-mediated sharing of social information appears to
occur more
slowly at first, and so the difference is likely one of rate rather
than depth
of content (Vroman & Kovachich, 2002; Walther, 1995).
TypES OF VIRTUAL TEAMS
The most important and most simple distinction between virtual

and
face-to-face teams may be that virtual team interactions are
almost always
mediated by various forms of electronic communication and
computer-
mediated-collaboration technology (Maznevski & Chudoba,
2000).
Virtual interactions generally fall into one of four categories
(Mittleman
& Briggs, 1998):
• Same time and same place interactions similar to face-to-
face interaction
except using technologically assisted communication instead of
face-to-
face communication, as with e-mail across an office
• Same time but different place interactions, such as using
instant messaging
• Different time but same place interactions such as using a
dedicated chat
room on a network
• Different time and different place interactions such as an
exchange of
e-mail communications as is commonly found in online
classrooms or multi-
office settings
These categories illustrate that almost any team is virtual to
some

extent at least some of the time. Face-to-face teams, for
example, may use
an electronic medium to send out minutes from a meeting or
even to con-
firm decisions reached during a hallway chat. Considering
teams along this
continuum from only virtual to only face to face is appealing
because most
teams utilize some combination of face-to-face and computer-
mediated
communication in their interactions (Griffith & Neale, 2001).
This con-
tinuum also reinforces the complexity of communication
channels avail-
able to any configuration of team members and may reduce the
tendency
to make stark comparisons of different types of team
interactions, as if
virtual communication is a single type of interaction that can be
easily
compared or understood.
ORGANIzING VIRTUAL TEAMS IN THE WORkpLACE
It is relatively easy for virtual team members or leaders to
establish
procedures for information sharing within the virtual team.
Facilitators
can even establish different forums to distinguish among the
task, social,
and contextual information typically shared by team members,
if they
wish, and create procedures appropriate for sharing or
transferring each
type of information (Maznevski & Athanassiou, 2003).
Organizations often

establish these expectations of systems in advance of creating
the virtual
team. Because differences in communication practices may also
emerge
as members do their work across multiple boundaries including
cultural,
geographical, or discipline, these procedures can also be
established to
reconcile these issues as they arise (Gibson & Manuel, 2003).
Team leaders
can establish themselves as norm setters and demonstrate
through practice
what is expected of the team members, can teach these norms to
new
members, or can enforce norms if members ignore these
expectations. A
virtual team norm, for example, might be to encourage people to
seek out
information through questions when problems or confusions
arise and to
give the benefit of the doubt in ambiguous situations instead of
making
negative attributions about the motives or intent of other team
members
TEAMS 191
(Maznevski & Athanassiou, 2003). Significantly,
communication occurs
between the individuals on a team, even though this
communication may
be visible to all team members (Varner, 2000). The most critical
virtual

team norm is likely focused on the how of team interaction and
collabora-
tion (Dillenbourg, 1999; Hakkinen, 2004), and this virtual
process may be
quite different from the process of working out team issues on a
face-to-
face team.
Because many organizations have several or many virtual teams
work-
ing simultaneously, most organizations prefer standard
operating processes
for all virtual teams. These norms are assumed to reduce the
time needed
for team startup and effective work processes and often
eliminates the
need for unnecessary reinvention of operating practices every
time a new
virtual team starts up. Common processes may include the
following (Duarte
& Snyder, 2001):
• Clear rules or expectations when using certain types of
technology
• Clear definition of what effective work completion means
• Agreement to team charters laying out general team norms
and expectations
• Project planning including time lines and specified team
member outcomes
• Documentation and reporting systems, including the
electronic archive
Most of these processes are usually shared with most face-to-
face teams,
yet procedures and goals must be clear so that virtual team
members know

how they are to work and what their objectives are. In colocated
teams,
vague or unclear expectations can be clarified through casual
conversation
in the hallway, but virtual teams need more structure because
this casual
chat is not available to them, or at least not available in the
same way. Again,
the how of interaction and collaboration is critical.
Virtual teams work around project timelines and stages of team
process
just as face-to-face teams do. Interestingly, the virtual team
formation pro-
cesses typically includes forming, norming, and performing
activities as
identified by Tuckman (1977), but the storming stage is
apparently often
folded into other stages, or ignored (Johnson et al., 2003). This
lack of
storming may be because virtual teams have more of a task than
personal-
ity focus, or perhaps because they often have established
predetermined
communication structures that resolve or otherwise deal with
how to do
work conflicts. Finally, although technology’s function in the
virtual team
enables the completion of work and overcomes many of the
complexities
created by time and distance, these technologies still need to be
understood
as only a communication and collaboration tool and not as
communication
or collaboration itself.

The use of virtual teams adds complexity for management in
many
organizations because virtual teams are sociological and social
systems
just as is any team, but virtual teams also have their work
processes inter-
twined with technological systems (Maznevski & Athanassiou,
2003).
Virtual teams may also have enhanced levels of diversity as
compared
with traditional face-to-face teams because of the multitude of
different
disciplines, functions, professions, organizations, countries, and
cultures
that can be easily added into the team (Griffith & Neale, 2001).
Thus, the
technological element, which allows asynchronous
communication to
happen at different times (Yates & Orlikowski, 2002), when
combined
with the diversity element, adds complexity that may create
additional
barriers that management or leaders need to be overcome when
working
to create effective teams. Flanagin and Waldeck (2004) note
that employee
membership and identification is a challenging concern as
organizations
become increasingly dispersed, decentralized, and virtual. Thus,
members
may well have competing allegiances, and overcoming these
barriers will

require purposeful management strategies.
VIRTUAL COMMUNICATION
Generically, communication is the process of transferring
information,
meaning, and understanding between two or more parties, and
there is a
huge literature on how this process can be made more efficient
and effec-
tive. Communication, whether virtual or face to face, is
fundamental to
getting any organizing or work done, as communication
provides the
basic building blocks with which people collaborate, make
decisions, and
act to achieve organizational objectives. Communication is also
central to
organizational socialization including sense making and
affiliation (Flanagin
& Waldeck, 2004).
Generically, communication is the pro-
cess of transferring information, mean-
ing, and understanding between two or
more parties, and there is a huge litera-
ture on how this process can be made
more efficient and effective.
TEAMS 193
Virtual teams typically use computer-mediated asynchronous
commu-

nication (CMAC). CMAC typically allows for multiple threads
or concur-
rent themes of conversation to occur from multiple contributors
all at the
same time, instead of being restricted to turn-taking (with
communication
blocking) as is common with synchronous face-to-face
communication
(Berry, 2006). As well as expressing ideas simultaneously, team
members
in the virtual environment can express their ideas completely
without
interruption by others and can make these contributions at a
time personally
convenient or available to them (Cappel & Windsor, 2000), thus
removing
competition for immediate airtime. Computer-mediated
communication
has fewer social, political, or power context cues as found in
face-to-face
communication. Verbal cues such as intonation, facial
expression, ges-
tures, and contextual cues that enable listeners to read (or
misread) the
speaker’s intent are missing in computer-mediated
communication, and
this can aid (or hinder) understanding (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991;
Vroman
& Kovachich, 2002). Another concern with CMAC virtual teams
is that
with geographically dispersed teams it is less likely that
informal or unin-
tentional information will be shared in parallel along with the
text-based
information, such as casual chats in the hallway or parking lot,
and this

may constrain understanding.
A frequently documented benefit of CMAC is that collaboration
is
largely unrestricted by location or time zone (Harasim, 1990).
This may
seem obvious, but temporal independence of communications
can also
change the patterns of work, discourse about work, and the
relationships
between the individuals involved in the work (Vroman &
Kovachich, 2002).
There is ongoing debate whether the lack of nonverbal cues is a
hindrance
or advantage in computer-mediated text-based communication,
but a
common although not consistent finding is that computer-
mediated group
interactions possess less social presence than face-to-face
communication
(Sproull & Kiesler, 1986), at least in the short term. This can
result with
work interactions being more task focused than on face-to-face
teams
(Hiltz, Johnson, & Turoff, 1986; Maynard, 2006), which is
considered to
be a beneficial difference, at least by some. Scott and
Timmerman (1999)
found that the degree of mediated communication had some
minor effects
on team or work identification. Johnson et al. (2003) found that
virtual team
members were less inhibited because of not being colocated and
that ideas
and feedback in the virtual environment were more frank.
Confounding

these apparent advantages may be differences in the technology
resources
available at the various sites; a lack of overlap in work hours
between
locations, which may result in slowed response time; and the
constraints
of local work priorities and culture.
Shared understanding of task and process has a significant
impact on
the ability of teams to coordinate and perform well, and in
creating con-
sistency. Consistency in process and expectations results in
more efficient
implementation simply because shared understandings not only
enable
people to more easily anticipate and predict the behavior of
individual
team members and the group as a whole (Hinds & Weisband,
2003) but
also influences ongoing communication (Yates & Orlikowski,
2002).
Asynchronous communication provides a constant opportunity
to talk
through problems, share perspectives, get feedback, and answer
questions
that arise among team members without waiting for scheduled
meetings
(Hinds & Weisband, 2003). Johnson et al. (2003) found the
major social-
ization issues in virtual teams were very similar to the issues

found in
face-to-face teams, including the unwillingness of team
members to par-
ticipate because of conflicting schedules or other issues, lack of
management
or team planning, and individual disagreements among team
members.
BENEFITS ANd pROBLEMS WITH VIRTUAL TEAMS
Virtual teams are increasingly being utilized by organizations
because
they give organizations the ability to bridge time and space
(Kanawattanachai
& Yoo, 2002). Virtual teams are also usually cost efficient (as
compared
with the expense and time of travel and travel coordination for
synchro-
nous face-to-face teams) and often provide a means for better
utilization
of distributed human resources (Lipnack & Stamps, 1999).
Virtual teams
can follow the sun and utilize 24-hour work schedules with
electronic
communication (Solomon, 2001), simply because different parts
of the
team in different parts of the world can work on various team
tasks at dif-
ferent times. Virtual teams enable organizations to attain a
broader geo-
graphic reach while maintaining effective contact with
employees and
customers (Maynard, 2006).
Performance is often easier to document and review in virtual
teams

because most interactions, commitments, and outcomes are
archived auto-
matically and electronically (Gibson & Cohen, 2003).
Asynchronous
processes are often more efficient because participation occurs
in parallel
instead of serially (with attendant communication blocking) as
with most
communication on face-to-face teams (Klein & Kleinhanns,
2003). In
TEAMS 195
some instances, the use of virtual teams is the only alternative
to not having
a team at all (Berry, 2006).
Virtual teams can amplify both the benefits and downsides of
traditional
teamwork. On the positive side, virtual teams that are designed,
managed,
and implemented effectively can harness talent and knowledge
from any-
where in the world to solve problems and complete work tasks
on a 24/7
schedule. However, if these teams are poorly designed and
managed, the
team dynamic may be weak or even fail, and outputs might be
inept or
nonexistent. Organizations must consciously create the
conditions for effec-
tive virtual teamwork, and the success or failure of virtual
teams (or the

organization itself) may well be a consequence of inept
leadership or man-
agement more than a consequence of technology or other
factors.
Virtual teams that are designed, man-
aged, and implemented effectively can
harness talent and knowledge from
anywhere in the world to solve prob-
lems and complete work tasks on a
24/7 schedule.
Negative outcomes are clearly possible when using virtual
teams. Hinds
and Weisband (2003) found that virtual team members tend to
initially
share less information than members of face-to-face teams.
Thus, team
members may have weaker shared understandings of needed
outcomes,
which in turn may cause negative effects on performance
outcomes; how-
ever, given time these lack-of-shared-information issues appear
to fade
(Walther, 1995). Local priorities, which are typically tied into
local per-
formance appraisal, may also interfere with some team members
fully
participating in the virtual work (Klein & Barrett, 2001).
Virtual work
may become a less important task activity that needs to be dealt
with or
managed when possible and when not interfering with other
local or regu-
lar responsibilities. Thus, virtual team leaders need to capture
the attention

of team members or risk that the virtual work will receive low
priority
because of perceived low importance, visibility, or salience and
therefore
be considered somewhat irrelevant in terms of work rewards and
recogni-
tion. These issues and problems are real at least in the short
term, but they
tend to fade as team members become more experienced with
the logistics
or systems of the virtual workplace, and so cohesion and
satisfaction does
form in virtual teams although this cohesion seems to take
longer than in
colocated teams (Burke, Aytes & Chidambaram, 2001).
To enhance effectiveness virtual teams need standardized and
efficient
data storage and retrieval systems in all team member locations,
and the
creation of these standardized systems needs to be purposeful
by the orga-
nization. Perhaps surprisingly, most virtual team members
prefer basic
e-mail with attachments as the primary medium of
communication and
rarely use more advanced technologies (Gibson & Cohen,
2003); thus, the
chosen computer-mediated communication systems do not need
to be
complex. Fail-safe technology is required for successful virtual

work, but
other important factors include human resource policies such as
training
and development for team leaders and team members regarding
virtual
teams and virtual work and an organizational culture and
leadership that
recognizes and supports virtual work teams (Duarte & Snyder,
2001).
These critical factors are also necessary with traditional teams.
Virtual
team leaders cannot assume that good technology is the only
added require-
ment over face-to-face teamwork for successful virtual
teamwork. Both
face-to-face and virtual teams demand management time,
thought, and
effort. Virtual team leaders and members not only need a solid
under-
standing of the work to be done, and need their interpersonal
factors dealt
with just as on a traditional face-to-face team, but also need
understanding
of the special challenges of leading and working on virtual
teams.
Building effectiveness on any team can be difficult, but certain
steps
can be taken to facilitate effective forming and norming of
virtual teams.
Many of these steps overlap with effective team building in the
face-to-
face environment, while a few are specific to the virtual
environment.
First, the perceived value of the team collaboration must be
apparent to all

members. Virtual team members need to know that their work is
impor-
tant and will be recognized as significant not only by others
members on
the virtual team but also by the organization. Second, each team
member’s
role and purpose for being part of the virtual team needs to be
clear not
only to the individual member but also to all other members of
the team.
Members on any team should be chosen for specific reasons,
and this
overriding logic needs to be explicit to all. Third, given that
computer-
mediated communication technology is being used, shared
accountability
to team processes and protocols should be emphasized, and the
benefits of
compliance (or sanctions for noncompliance) should be apparent
to all.
Frequent and continuous communications among team members
may be
TEAMS 197
the most important protocol to be supported. Finally, given a
recognized
tendency to task orientation on many virtual teams, team leaders
should
make additional efforts to make the virtual environment as
friendly and
human as possible (Klein & Kleinhanns, 2003).

COMMUNICATION ON VIRTUAL TEAMS
The absence of physical presence is considered by some to be
the major
drawback of virtual teams and virtual work (Cohen & Gibson,
2003).
Some virtual team members may be less productive or satisfied
because
they feel isolated and detached from both the work and the other
team
members. Indeed, the literature on motivation and satisfaction
holds that
most employees are motivated and satisfied in part as a result of
interac-
tions with coworkers (Kirkham et al., 2002). Counterbalancing
this con-
straint, however, other research suggests that virtual work
reduces commonly
experienced face-to-face team-process losses caused by
stereotyping, per-
sonality, power or political conflicts, and cliques (Timmerman,
2000).
Generalizations may be unproductive, yet because the computer-
mediated
environment is not time or location bound it can enable
reflective and sub-
stantive feedback, which some team members may appreciate
even more
so than the immediate although perhaps less substantive
feedback common
in face-to-face communication. The reflective tone often found
in asyn-
chronous communication can lead to team identity and support,
at least
for some (Berry, 2006). Still, working on virtual teams or doing
virtual

work is likely not the best choice of work environments for all
individuals.
The qualities of virtual social interactions are often judged as
lacking
when measured relative to traditional face-to-face team
interactions
(Jameson, 2007). The problem, however, may be more in terms
of how
individuals compare the virtual communication channels with
the more
familiar face-to-face channel, instead of comparing the
effectiveness or
outcomes of the interactions. Creating social relationships may
be more
difficult or at least slower to develop in the virtual environment
(Walther,
1995), but for certain types of work this lack of social
relationship may
create a more task focused work environment and may lead to
superior
task outcomes. Johnson et al. (2003) suggest that virtual team
members
spend far less time on social tasks, yet other research indicates
that
participants in virtual learning communities actually score
higher on mea-
sures on interaction than do participants in traditional face-to-
face learning
communities (Hay, Hodgkinson, Peltier, & Drago, 2004).
Although vir-

tual team members may miss the normal face-to-face
interactions of the
workplace or classroom, they also typically acknowledge that
these more
traditional social interactions are not necessary to complete
their assign-
ments (Berry, 2006).
Most virtual teams use some combination of voice mail and e-
mail,
both of which are easy to use and can be sent (although not
necessarily
heard or read) immediately. E-mail is sometimes more efficient
than voice
mail because it can broadcast the same message to a large
number of
people simultaneously (Duarte & Snyder, 2001). When
extensive infor-
mation such as multiple pages of text or a video file needs to be
included
with a message then e-mail is clearly superior. E-mail can also
be more
effective when the message, or the response to it, is complex
and requires
a written explanation, or perhaps benefits from an attached text
history
with citations. E-mail makes it easy to forward messages (exact
word-for-
word messages instead of précis or interpreted messages) or to
send cop-
ies or reminders of prior text conversation to others.
Significantly, e-mail
provides participants time to reflect, research, or reconsider
their replies
before responding (Khoshafian & Buckwitz, 1995), instead of
the usual

instant response often expected in synchronous verbal
communication.
Finally, e-mail provides a permanent written archive/record of
the discus-
sion with no extra effort or cost.
Evaluation of individual and group outcomes is a critical aspect
for
any team, including virtual teams. Fortunately, virtual team
managers
have very accurate records of the work done by team members
because
of the dated and permanent archive of all communication. These
archived
records are likely more accurate than the informal evaluation
done
through random and time-bound observations of work processes
in colo-
cated teams. Peer evaluation is also easily done virtually and is
perhaps
less confounded by personality or other nontask behaviors and
actions
as with colocated teams, and so team members can be judged on
what they
actually accomplish rather than what they appear to be doing
(Kirkham
et al., 2002), or when their work output is confounded by social
or other
considerations.
An appreciation of the differences between virtual and face-to-
face
communication is essential in developing and facilitating
effective com-
munication in the virtual team (Bordia, DiFonzo, & Chang,
1999). Many

technologies for virtual teamwork are designed for functional
collabora-
tion such as sharing documents or having a discussion
asynchronously but
TEAMS 199
may fail to encourage or support shared understanding and team
forming
processes (Kirschner & Van Bruggen, 2004). Collaboration
requires a
coordinated effort by team members and team leaders to
identify and solve
problems together (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995) and thus is more
than
simply exchanging information.
LEAdERSHIp OF VIRTUAL TEAMS
Although many traditional leadership principles apply to virtual
teams,
virtual team leaders also experience challenges that may be
unique to
virtual teams (Grenier & Metes, 1995). Most significantly,
virtual team
leaders typically rely on electronic communication technology
to send
and receive information and thus need to modify the ways in
which they
provide feedback and gather data. Team leaders also need to
modify the
ways they interact with team members on both professional and
interper-

sonal levels (Duarte & Snyder, 2001). Nevertheless, effective
virtual team
leaders still need to understand the fundamental principles of
team dynam-
ics and accountability as on any team and also need to
understand the
differences found when communicating in the virtual
environment. Impor-
tantly, virtual spaces are real to the people who inhabit them
(Lipnack &
Stamps, 2000), and many of the usual workplace dynamics are
still in
play. Creating effective virtual work teams is difficult because
both lead-
ers and members of virtual teams, even if experienced with
face-to-face
teams, need enhanced competencies to be effective.
Leadership is integral to the team developmental process.
Leaders
should facilitate the team development process by presenting
organiza-
tional structure and goals and explaining how the team’s work
aids these
goals, keeping the team focused on task, and managing the
logistics that
could interfere with task completion (Patel et al., 1999; Vroman
&
Kovachich, 2002). Virtual teams have the possibility of having
huge
membership diversity, much less different time zones or
national cul-
tures, so virtual team leaders must also make certain that all
team mem-
bers get the training and support they need to enable them to
facilitate

discussions using technical and nontechnical methods. Effective
leader-
ship on virtual teams requires systems for monitoring behavior
and should
have accepted protocols for intervening early when technical or
other
problems arise (Maznevski & Athanassiou, 2003). Thus,
training in facili-
tation skills is also an integral part of development for virtual
team leaders
as well as for team members.
Four competencies in leading effective virtual teams can be
identified
as critical: communication, establishing expectations, allocating
resources,
and modeling desired behaviors (Duarte & Snyder, 2001). These
are all
significant and mirror effective competencies found in face-to-
face lead-
ers but need to be exhibited while reinforcing that the virtual
work itself
is seen as significant and important by team members and the
organiza-
tion. Virtual team leaders need to find ways of making their
virtual teams
and the work of the team a top priority, what Gayeski (2000)
terms captur-
ing a team member’s mind-share. Capturing mind-share is a
common prob-
lem in both collocated and virtual teams, and even on collocated
teams

there is often a gap between time available to work on team
activities and
the time required to fully accomplish all the work activities.
This chal-
lenge is more daunting on virtual teams because of the physical
distance
between team members and the out of sight, out of mind
syndrome (Klein
& Kleinhanns, 2003). Creating this sense of importance and
significance
for virtual work may be the most critical task asked of virtual
team leaders.
Four competencies in leading effective
virtual teams can be identified as criti-
cal: communication, establishing expec-
tations, allocating resources, and
modeling desired behaviors.
CREATING EFFECTIVE VIRTUAL TEAMS
As teams become more virtual they usually confront greater
uncer-
tainty and complexity because of distance, time, and cultural
differences,
thus increasing information processing and communication
difficulties as
they attempt to complete their work tasks. Being almost
completely virtual
can amplify some of the challenges facing teams but can also
amplify the
benefits of teamwork in several ways. Electronically mediated
communi-
cation offers efficiency benefits by reducing the cost of
coordinating travel,
finding common open times for all members to attend meetings,

and the
expense of having all members of the team meet in the same
place at the
same time, convenient or not (Berry, 2006). Five factors that
can support
virtual team effectiveness include having a supportive
organizational
TEAMS 201
culture, some characteristics of the task itself, technology use,
team mem-
ber characteristics supported by training and development, and
work and
team processes (Cohen & Gibson, 2003). Relatively simple
organization
work or team tasks can be completed virtually without the
presence of
higher-level collaboration skills and trust (Jarvenpaa & Leidner,
1999), but
the highest levels of effectiveness require these characteristics,
along with
leadership and systems support (Klein & Kleinhanns, 2003).
Organizational
level support, for example, could include norms developed to
enhance a
positive virtual teamwork culture (Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard,
& Werner,
1998). Formation activities such as establishing easy
communication,
understanding the technology to be used and technology
training, and
creating explicit start-up norms and expectations for team

members are
more critical in virtual team start-up than in collocated teams
(Gibson &
Cohen, 2003). This initial work provides the common grounding
needed
to bridge differences between team members and helps in
developing a
basic operating structure that aids in creating stability and
shared expecta-
tions so that tasks can be completed.
Most research over the past 20 years comparing face-to-face and
virtual
teams notes no significant difference in the output or
performance levels
(Cappel & Windsor, 2000; Hiltz et al., 1986; Straus & McGrath,
1994). In
certain situations and with certain tasks, virtual teams have
created supe-
rior performance (Jarvenpaa, Rao, & Huber, 1988; Maynard,
2006;
Schmidt, Montoya-Weiss, & Massey, 2001). In other situations,
however,
especially when the team is under time constraints, virtual team
perfor-
mance has been found to be less than face-to-face team
performance (Graetz,
Boyle, Kimble, Thompson, & Garlock, 1998; Hollingshead,
McGrath, &
O’Conner, 1993). Possibly, the variance in performance may be
depen-
dent on the efforts and knowledge expended by leaders when
establishing
the virtual or face-to-face teams, or perhaps the variance is
dependent on
the amount of experience with virtual work among the virtual

team mem-
bers, or possibly due to other social factors. Uncertainty still
needs to be
resolved on any team, and this takes more time on the virtual
team com-
pared with the face-to-face team (Walther, 1995).
CONCLUSION
Virtual teams are increasingly common in most organizations,
and
business communication is increasingly intercultural,
horizontal, strate-
gic, and change focused as well (Thomas, 2007). Organizations
that are
unwilling or unable to use virtual teams may find themselves
losing out
in an increasingly competitive and rapidly changing global
economic and
social environment. Some research claims that the use of virtual
teams
is expanding exponentially (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000).
Computer-
mediated virtual teams can increase speed and agility of
information
transfer simply because large and complex files can be instantly
sent to
almost any location. Expertise and vertical integration can be
leveraged
easily and quickly between organizations to make resources
readily

available; and even additional team members can be added or
removed
with a keystroke. The economic and business justifications for
virtual
teams because of time and travel savings are difficult to deny,
yet ques-
tions remain unanswered regarding the effectiveness and
efficiency of
virtual teams under various conditions (Grimshaw & Kwok,
1998). The
technical communication advances are clear, yet enabling
effective par-
ticipation and team collaboration is a more complex problem.
The skill sets required for success in managing effective virtual
work
teams are more complex than the skill sets required for success
in manag-
ing face-to-face teams. Without common technical support
systems, build-
ing competencies and expertise is difficult, and this can hamper
overall
development, knowledge management, and sense making
(Gibson &
Cohen, 2003). Problematic issues such as difficulties in
reaching shared
understanding, in coordinating perspectives, and in establishing
a sense of
social presence are perhaps exacerbated in virtual interactions,
and these
need to be acknowledged and dealt with by management
(Hakkinen, 2004).
Ironically, most of the research on teams, team building, and
development
is still focused on traditional face-to-face teams. Perhaps
simplistically,

the effectiveness of virtual teams and resultant outcomes of
virtual team-
work is dependent on the resolution of miscommunication and
conflict, the
development of adequate and competent roles within the team
for working
together, and facilitating good communication between team
members.
REFERENCES
Alderfer, C. P. (1987). An intergroup perspective on group
dynamics. In J. W. Lorsch
(ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 190-222).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2002). A typology of virtual
teams. Group and Organization
Management, 27, 14-49.
Berry, G. R. (2006). Can computer-mediated asynchronous
communication improve team
processes and decision-making? Learning from the management
literature. Journal of
Business Communication, 43, 344-366.
TEAMS 203
Bordia, P., DiFonzo, N., & Chang, A. (1999). Rumor as group
problem solving: Developing
patters in informal computer mediated groups. Small Group
Research, 30, 8-28.

Burke, K., Aytes, K., & Chidambaram, L. (2001). Media effects
on the development of
cohesions and process satisfaction in computer-supported
workgroups: An analysis of
results form two longitudinal studies. Information Technology
and People, 122-141.
Cappel, J. J., & Windsor, J. C. (2000). Ethical decision making:
A comparison of computer-
supported and face-to-face groups. Journal of Business Ethics,
28, 95-107.
Cohen, S. G., & Gibson, C. B. (2003). In the beginning:
Introduction and framework. In
C. B. Gibson, & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work:
Creating Conditions for
virtual team effectiveness (pp. 1-14). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by
“collaborative learning”? In
P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and
computational approaches
(pp. 1-19). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Duarte, D. L., & Snyder, N. T. (2001). Mastering virtual teams:
Strategies, tools, and
techniques that succeed (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Flanagin, A. J., & Waldeck, J. H. (2004). Technology use and
organizational newcomer
socialization. Journal of Business Communication, 41, 137-165.
Gayeski, D. (2000). Managing the communication function:

Capturing mindshare for
organizational performance. San Francisco, CA: International
Association of Business
Communication.
Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. (2003). The last word:
Conclusions and implication. In
C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work:
Creating conditions for
virtual team effectiveness (pp. 403-421). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Gibson, C. B., & Manuel, J. A. (2003). Building trust: Effective
multicultural communica-
tion processes in virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen
(Eds.), Virtual teams
that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness
(pp. 59-86). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Graetz, K. A., Boyle, E. S., Kimble, C. E., Thompson, P., &
Garlock, J. L. (1998).
Information sharing in face-to-face, teleconferencing and
electronic chat groups. Small
Group Research, 29, 714-743.
Grenier, R., & Metes, G. (1995). Going virtual: Moving your
organization in the 21st
century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Griffith, T. L., & Neale, M. A. (2001). Information processing
in traditional, hybrid, and
virtual teams: From nascent knowledge to transactive memory.
Research in Organizational
Behavior, 23, 379-421.

Griffith, T. L., Sawyer, J. E., & Neale, M. A. (2003).
Virtualness and knowledge in teams:
Managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and
information technology.
MIS Quarterly, 27, 265-287.
Grimshaw, D. J., & Kwok, F. T. S. (1998).The business benefits
of the virtual organiza-
tion. In M. Igbaria & M. Tan (Eds.), The virtual workplace (pp.
45-70). Hershey, PA:
Idea Group.
Guribye, F., Andressen, E. F., & Wasson, B. (2003).The
organization of interaction in
distributed collaborative learning. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen,
& U. Hoppe (Eds.),
Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp.
385-394). Dortrecht,
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W.
Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of
organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for
great performance. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hakkinen, P. (2004).What makes learning and understanding in
virtual teams so difficult?
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7, 201-206.

Harasim, L. (1990). On-line education: An environment for
collaboration and intellectual
amplification. In L. Harasim (Ed.), On-line education:
Perspectives on a new environ-
ment. New York, NY: Praeger.
Hay, A., Hodgkinson, M., Peltier, J., & Drago, W. (2004).
Interaction and virtual learning.
Strategic Change, 13, 193.
Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in
group-decision making:
Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus
computerized conferences.
Human Communication Research, 13, 225-252.
Hinds, P. J., & Weisband, S. P. (2003). Knowledge sharing and
shared understanding in
virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen. Virtual teams
that work: Creating con-
ditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 21-36). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hollingshead, A. B., McGrath, J. E., & O’Conner, K. M. (1993).
Group task performance
and communication technology: A longitudinal study of
computer-mediated versus
face-to-face work groups. Small Group Research, 24, 307-333.
Jameson, D. A. (2007). Reconceptualizing cultural identity and
its role in intercultural
business communication. Journal of Business Communication,
44, 199-235.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and
trust in global virtual

teams. Organizational Science, 10, 791-815.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Rao, V. S., & Huber, G. P. (1988). Computer
support for meetings of groups
working on unstructured problems: A field experiment. MIS
Quarterly, 12, 645-666.
Johnson, S. D., Chanidprapa, S., Yoon, S. W., Berrett, J. V., &
LaFleur, J. (2003). Team
development and group processes of virtual learning teams.
Computers and Education,
39, 379-393.
Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust
in virtual teams. Journal
of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 187-213.
Khoshafian, S., & Buckwitz, M. (1995). Introduction to group
ware, workflow, and work-
group computing. New York, NY: Wiley.
Kirkham, B. L., Rosen, B. M., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., &
McPherson, S. O. (2002). Five
challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre Inc.
Academy of Management
Executive, 16(3), 67-79.
Kirschner, P. A., & Van Bruggen, J. (2004). Learning and
understanding in virtual teams.
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7, 135-139.
Klein, J., & Barrett, B. (2001). One foot in a global team, one
foot at the local site: Making
sense out of living in two worlds simultaneously. In M.
Beyerlein (Ed.), Advances in
interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Virtual teams (Vol. 8,

pp. 107-125). Stamford,
CT: JAI.
Klein, J. A., & Kleinhanns, A. (2003). Closing the time gap in
virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson
& S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating
conditions for virtual team
effectiveness (pp. 381-399). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lipnack, J. S., & Stamps, J. (1999, January-February). Virtual
teams: The new way to
work. Strategy and Leadership, 14-19.
Lipnack, J. S., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams: People
working across boundaries with
technology. New York, NY: John Wiley.
TEAMS 205
May, G. L., & Gueldenzoph, L. E. (2006). The effect of social
style on peer evaluation
ratings in project teams. Journal of Business Communication,
43, 4-20.
Maynard, M. T. (2006, August). Group potency: Are virtual
teams at a developmental
disadvantage? Paper presented at the Academy of Management
Conference, Hawaii.
Maznevski, M. L., & Athanassiou, N. A. (2003). Designing the
knowledge-management
infrastructure for virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen
(Eds.), Virtual teams

that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness
(pp. 196-213). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. (2000). Building space over
time: Global virtual team
dynamics and effectiveness. Organizational Science, 11, 473-
492.
Mittleman, D. D., & Briggs, B. O. (1998). Communication
technology for teams: electronic
collaboration. In E. Sunderstrom & Associates (Eds.),
Supporting work team effective-
ness: Best practices for fostering high-performance. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Patel, V. L., Kaufman, D. R., Allen, V. G., Shortliffe, E. H.,
Cimino, J. J., & Freenes, P. A.
(1999). Towards a framework for computer-mediated
collaborative design in medical
informatics. Methods of Information in Medicine, 38, 158-176.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared
knowledge in collaborative
problem solving. In C. E. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported
collaborative learning
(pp. 69-97). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Schmidt, J. B., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Massey, A. P. (2001).
New product develop-
ment decision-making effectiveness: Comparing individuals,
face-to-face teams, and
virtual teams. Decision Sciences, 32, 575-600.
Scott, C. R., & Timmerman, C. E. (1999). Communication
technology use and multiple

workplace identifications among organizational teleworkers
with varied degrees of
virtuality. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication,
42, 240-260.
Solomon, C. M. (2001). Managing virtual teams. Workforce, 80,
60-64.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues:
Electronic mail in organi-
zational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of
working in the networked
organization. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Straus, S. G., & McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does the medium
matter? The interaction of task
type and technology on group performance and member
reactions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 87-97.
Thomas, G. F. (2007). How can we make our research more
relevant? Bridging the gap
between workplace changes and business communication
research. Journal of Business
Communication, 44, 283-296.
Timmerman, T. A. (2000). Racial diversity, age diversity,
interdependence, and team
performance. Small Group Research, 31, 592-606.
Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R.
(1998). Virtual teams: Technology
and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management
Executive, 12(3), 17-29.

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-
group development revisited.
Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419-427.
Varner, I. I. (2000). The theoretical foundation for intercultural
business communication:
A conceptual model. Journal of Business Communication, 37,
39-57.
Vroman, K., & Kovachich, J. (2002). Computer-mediated
interdisciplinary teams: Theory
and reality. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 16, 159-170.
Walther, J. B. (1995). Related aspects of computer-mediated
communication: Experiential
observations. Organizational Science, 6, 180-203.
Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, A. M., & Werner, J.
M. (1998). Managers as
Initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for
understanding managerial
trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23,
513-530.
Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. (2002). Structuring interaction
through communicative norms.
Journal of Business Communication, 39, 13-35.
Copyright of Journal of Business Communication is the property

of Association for Business Communication
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
Please provide substantial in your own word answers to the
following questions. Word count must be 50 or more.
1. What are the characteristics of effective team players and
team building, and how does this knowledge improve my
performance in various types of teams?
2. Three Levels of Political Action
The individual level, at the individual level, self-interests are
pursued by the individual.
Coalition-Level Politics, a coalition is an informal group bound
together by the active pursuit of a single issue. Coalitions may
or may not coincide with formal group membership. When the
target issue is resolved (a sexually harassing supervisor is fired,
for example), the coalition disbands. Experts note that political
coalitions have “fuzzy boundaries,” meaning they are fluid in
membership, flexible in structure, and temporary in duration.
Coalitions are a potent political force in organizations. For
instance, a coalition representing farmers and airlines persuaded
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to exempt these
industries from new legislation that requires companies that
trade futures contracts, in commodities such as grain and jet
fuel, to put up greater amounts of collateral.
Network-Level Politics, a third level of political action involves
networks. Unlike coalitions, which pivot on specific issues,
networks are loose associations of individuals seeking social
support for their general self-interests. Politically, networks are

people-oriented, while coalitions are issue-oriented. Networks
have broader and longer-term agendas than do coalitions. For
instance, many former Goldman Sachs executives (e.g., Hank
Paulson, Stephen Friedman, Josh Bolten, and Robert Rubin)
went on to high-level government jobs. Many people have
alleged that this large and powerful network has protected the
interests of Wall Street firms generally and those of Goldman
Sachs in particular.
How can understanding these forms of politics make me more
effective at school, at work, and socially?
3. Please see attached reading “enhancing effectiveness on
virtual teams”and answer the following question. What are the
pros and cons of virtual teams?
4. Please see attached reading “Group Dynamic and answer the
following questions. Have you used or seen any of the
techniques used before? How effective were they? Are there
other ways not discussed in the video that you have also seen
used to influence the group dynamics? How effective were
they?
5. Please see attached reading “MGT312 Influence, Power, and
Trust Transcript” and provide thoughts.
6. Please see attached reading “Group Development” and
provide answers to following questions. What are the different
stages of group development? How can understanding the stages
of group development and group properties help employees in a
work group function more effectively? Please give a brief
example(s) of when you went through some or all of the stages
of group development. How did the different stages help with
the ultimate formation and functioning of the group?
7. Have you ever been exposed, either directly or indirectly, to
an unethical use of power? If so, what type of power was

involved? When an organization downsizes, what ethical issues
should a manager consider? What ethical issues must you
consider when engaging in political behavior within the
workplace?
8. Please see attached reading “social loafing” and provide
answers to the following questions.

Peter, teams are an important part of the workplace, and we need t.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from mattjtoni51554

More from mattjtoni51554 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Peter, teams are an important part of the workplace, and we need t.docx