Group Member Discussion RubricStudent NameTotal Points PossibleTotal Points ReceivedLate Work Percentage (select from drop down menu)Late Work DeductionFinal Points Received 750.000% Windows User: Windows User: Select dropdown menu for percentage deducted for late work.0.000.00CriterionSuperior Criteria (100%)Excellent Criteria (95%)Satisfactory Criteria (85%)Marginal Criteria (75%)Unacceptable Criteria (0%)Points Possible Evaluation (select from drop down menu)Points ReceivedFaculty FeedbackElement 1: Initial Posting Content for Weeks 2, 4, 6 (28 points maximum; 37% of total points)Student provides an original, thought-provoking, in-depth initial post addressing more than one summative consideration. The student's post stimulates critical inquiry and uses at least five additional scholarly resources to support thinking.Student provides an original, thought-provoking, in-depth initial post addressing more than one summative consideration. The student's post stimulates critical inquiry and uses at least five additional scholarly resources to support thinking. However, there are one or two minor errors in the content of the post.Student provides a good, organized post addressing at least one summative consideration, but does not consistently demonstrate higher-order thinking. The student's post stimulates some critical inquiry and uses at least five additional scholarly resources, but some details are lacking or not accurate. Student provides a weak or incomplete post addressing at least one summative consideration. The student's post demonstrates a low level of thinking and/or resources are lacking and/or do not support thinking.Does not meet minimal standards.280% Windows User: Windows User: Select drop down menu for inputting grade for this criterion.0Element 2: Follow-up Responses to Colleagues and Interaction for Weeks 3, 5, 7 (27 points maximum; 36% of total points)Student engages with several peers bringing the discussion to a higher level of inquiry and investigation. Responses are thorough and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes. Student engages with several peers bringing the discussion to a higher level of inquiry and investigation. Responses are thorough and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes. However, there are one or two minor errors in content of responses.Student engages with at least two peers and helps extend the discussion. Responses are good and somewhat contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes. Student engages with at least two peers. Responses are minimal and do not fully contribute to the q ...

1. Group Member Discussion RubricStudent NameTotal Points
PossibleTotal Points ReceivedLate Work Percentage
(select from drop down menu)Late Work DeductionFinal Points
Received 750.000%
Windows User: Windows User:
Select dropdown menu for percentage deducted for late
work.0.000.00CriterionSuperior Criteria (100%)Excellent
Criteria (95%)Satisfactory Criteria (85%)Marginal Criteria
(75%)Unacceptable Criteria (0%)Points Possible Evaluation
(select from drop down menu)Points ReceivedFaculty
FeedbackElement 1: Initial Posting Content for Weeks 2, 4, 6
(28 points maximum; 37% of total points)Student provides an
original, thought-provoking, in-depth initial post addressing
more than one summative consideration. The student's post
stimulates critical inquiry and uses at least five additional
scholarly resources to support thinking.Student provides an
original, thought-provoking, in-depth initial post addressing
more than one summative consideration. The student's post
stimulates critical inquiry and uses at least five additional
scholarly resources to support thinking. However, there are one
or two minor errors in the content of the post.Student provides a
good, organized post addressing at least one summative
consideration, but does not consistently demonstrate higher-
order thinking. The student's post stimulates some critical
inquiry and uses at least five additional scholarly resources, but
some details are lacking or not accurate. Student provides a
weak or incomplete post addressing at least one summative
consideration. The student's post demonstrates a low level of
thinking and/or resources are lacking and/or do not support
thinking.Does not meet minimal standards.280%
Windows User: Windows User:
Select drop down menu for inputting grade for this

2. criterion.0Element 2: Follow-up Responses to Colleagues and
Interaction for Weeks 3, 5, 7 (27 points maximum; 36% of total
points)Student engages with several peers bringing the
discussion to a higher level of inquiry and investigation.
Responses are thorough and fully contribute to the quality of
interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-
depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts
and/or probes.
Student engages with several peers bringing the discussion to a
higher level of inquiry and investigation. Responses are
thorough and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by
offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions,
additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.
However, there are one or two minor errors in content of
responses.Student engages with at least two peers and helps
extend the discussion. Responses are good and somewhat
contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive
critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources,
and stimulating thoughts and/or probes. Student engages with at
least two peers. Responses are minimal and do not fully
contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive
critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources,
and stimulating thoughts and/or probes. Responses may lack
relevant examples and/or details to support reasoning.
Does not meet minimal standards.270%
Windows User: Windows User:
Select drop down menu for inputting grade for this criterion.
Windows User: Windows User:
Faculty Feedback - input comments for the student related to
this criterion.0Element 3: Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics (10
points maximum; 13% of total points)Student consistently uses
scholarly tone, uses original writing and proper paraphrasing,
has no writing or spelling errors, and writing is fully consistent
with basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay

3. style. There are no errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics in
the writing.Student consistently uses scholarly tone, uses
original writing and proper paraphrasing, has no writing or
spelling errors, and writing is fully consistent with basic rules
of formal English grammar and written essay style. There are
one or two minor errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics in the
writing.Student uses good scholarly tone and original writing
and proper paraphrasing; however writing has some errors in
grammar, usage, or mechanics, but they do not distract the
reader. Student does not use good scholarly tone and/or may
demonstrate heavy reliance on quoting versus original writing
and paraphrasing. There are several errors in grammar, usage,
or mechanics that distract the reader. Does not meet minimal
standards.100%
Windows User: Windows User:
Select drop down menu for inputting grade for this criterion.
Windows User: Windows User:
Faculty Feedback - input comments for the student related to
this criterion.0Element 4: APA Formatting and Style (10 points
maximum; 13% of total points)Student demonstrates full
adherence to APA style and reference requirements. There are
no errors in APA formatting and style.Student demonstrates full
adherence to APA style and reference requirements. There are
one or two minor errors in APA style or format.Student mostly
adheres to APA style and reference requirements. Most citations
are referenced correctly and aligned with APA format. There
may be several different errors and/or one consistent error
throughout paper.Student demonstrates weak and/or inconsistent
adherence to APA style and reference requirements. There are
numerous errors in APA format and/or style that distract the
reader and make the writing difficult to read and/or a missing
Reference page.Does not meet minimal standards.100%
Windows User: Windows User:

4. Select drop down menu for inputting grade for this criterion.
Windows User: Windows User:
Faculty Feedback - input comments for the student related to
this criterion.0
Windows User: Windows User:
Faculty Feedback - input comments for the student related to
this criterion.
Windows User: Windows User:
Enter student name.
Windows User: Windows User:
Select dropdown menu for percentage deducted for late work.
DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT: As a Group Member for this 2-
week unit, based on your own prior knowledge and current
research, you will continue your group's discussion by
addressing the assigned summative considerations that pertain
specifically to the topic for this pair of weeks. Read each
criterion and compare the information with the syllabus details
for a better understanding of expectations for assignment.
DIRECTIONS FOR FACULTY: 1) Enter student name. 2)
When appropriate, select Late Work Percentage and enter
percent using drop down menu. 3) Use the drop down menu for
each criterion in the Evaluation box (column H) to grade
assignment. 4) Enter student feedback in the Faculty Feedback
box as needed (column J).
APA Manual (6th edition): Chapter 3 - Writing Clearly and
Concisely; Chapter 4 - The Mechanics of Style; Chapter 5 -
Displaying Results; Chapter 6 - Crediting Sources; Chapter 7 -
Reference Examples
© 2015 Laureate Education, Inc.

5. COURSE REQUIREMENT AND LEARNING OUTCOME
Weeks 5–6: Dynamic Multicultural and Virtual Teams
Introduction
Multicultural virtual teams not only affect relational aspects of
organizations but also an organization's success. According to
Gatlin-Watts (2007), organizations that can rapidly create
global virtual teams to meet customer needs may have a
competitive advantage. The authors share lessons learned from
the implementation process of a multicultural, virtual teaming
project. Focus on the steps taken to foster cultural
understanding, build trust, solicit widespread input, and balance
control with shared objectives.
Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier (2008) provide recommendations
for managing virtual, global teams. They include suggestions
for preventing conflict, scheduling and facilitating meetings,
and using technology to facilitate group work effectiveness.
They also list various advantages and disadvantages of using
virtual global teams. The authors base their findings on both
literature review and interviews.
Lu, Watson-Manheim, Chudoba, & Wynn (2006) investigate the
effects of perceived variety in work practices and processes on
virtual team performance. Their research stems from the
collected survey data of 1,200 Intel employees as well as a
smaller number of interviews with the company's employees.
Consider how their findings may apply to other types of
organizations, including the non-profit sector or governmental
agencies.
During the next two weeks, you will explore a portion of the
literature that is focused on the practical skills necessary to
manage global virtual teams as you review the lessons learned
from implementations in the field. Focus on the skills
illuminated in the literature, and assess the skills that you need
to either develop or further enhance your global leadership
success.

6. Learning Outcomes
By the end of this week, you will be able to:
· Define the breadth of knowledge and experience required to
develop organizational structures that support global
collaboration.
· Assess the strengths and weaknesses of working with
multicultural and global teams.
· Articulate key technology platforms that may be utilized to
reduce barriers within virtual teams.
· Analyze new global leadership insights related to the
promotion of intercultural collaboration.
· Synthesize conclusions and outcomes in the field of
multicultural management.
· Identify opportunities for new research regarding multicultural
and virtual global teams.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
1
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
5
Staples, D. S., & Zhao, L. (2006). The effects of cultural
diversity in virtual teams versus face-to-face teams. Group
Decision and Negotiation, 15(4), 389-406. doi: 10.1007/s10726-
006-9042-x
The study analyses the effects of cultural diversity on teams
that operate face to face in comparison to those in a virtual
setting. The purpose of the scholars is validating which strategy
yields positive returns. The scholar also intends to contextualize
the implication of using virtual team over the preference of
teams in which people interact face to face. The scope of the
study is organization utilizing both methodologies in

7. facilitating accomplishments of tasks. The positive thing from
the study is that the information can guide multinational
formulating structure for enhancing coordination in a different
team in different places of the globe.
The researchers use short-term heterogeneous teams in
assessing the implications of virtual teams on the performance
of organization vis-à-vis face-to-face teams. While conducting
the empirical study, the researchers considered variation such as
nationality, languages and individual values in the analysis. The
underlying concept is that the performance of virtual teams
tends to yield positive results that enhanced the returns of
working face to face. The issues considered are decision-making
and conflict resolution.
The philosophical assumption in the study is that working as
virtual team dissipates the variations that augment conflicts in
organizations. For that reason, it becomes much easier dealing
with work-related challenges in virtual teams unlike in face-to-
face interactions. The findings of the study affirm the
assertions. The limitation of the study is that it prioritizes the
utilization of virtual teams over face to face interactions yet on
numerous occasions virtual interactions does not present the
opportunity for one to express themselves objectively. The
strength of the reading is that it promotes objectivity in the
evaluation of performance of teams both on face-to-face
interaction and in a virtual setting.
Gatlin-Watts, R., Carson, M., Horton, J., Maxwell, L., &
Maltby, N. (2007). A guide to global virtual teaming. Team
Performance Management: An International Journal, 13(1/2),
47-52. doi: 10.1108/13527590710736725
The journal presents an insight into the process of virtual team
formations. The researchers conducted the study with the intent
of guiding people establish virtual consortium team for projects.
They rely on the previous experiences of students and scholars

8. in validating their assertion about the concept of virtual
teaming. The study took the form of experiments in which
participant share information via email on various issues. The
participants had to exchange the information to the rest of the
member before disclosing the contents upon the comprehension
by the target party. The Hofstede's four dimensions serve as the
parameters for quantifying responses.
The reading highlights the significant of trust in virtual teams
and the process of building the trust. The researcher in
exploring the concept is reiterating the significance of trust and
confidence in the functioning of teams. The assumption in the
analysis is that effective coordination depends on the ability of
individual trust. The philosophical concept guiding the
reasoning is that belief transcends physical differences. The
premise is that the values hold in all cultures. For that reason,
the promotion of the same in the context of an organization is
instrumental in promoting understanding in organizations.
Another underlying assumption in the study that takes the form
of a cultural dimension analysis is that humanity shares
particular value albeit differences. It is for this reason that
virtual organization tend to thrive energy in a context where
people do not share a similarity. The shortcoming of the article
is that it emphasizes the need to promote trust yet the success of
a virtual organization depends on a myriad of factors. Among
them is the ability of members to synergize efforts. Therefore,
in choosing to focus on trust, the reading creates subjectivity in
limiting the scope of factors that affects success in the
organization.
Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging space
over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness.
Organization science, 11(5), 473-492. Retrieved December 29,
2016, from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/ehost/pdfvie
wer/pdfviewer?sid=44d9cb7e-2d5b-4dac-901f-

9. 0f8e0334e5b4%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&hid=4107
Maznevski and Chudoba address the significance of virtual team
in bridging space and time among many other physical
constraints. The purpose of the scholars in exploring the
concepts is enabling the readers to understand the significance
of shifting from utilizing traditional teams to the adaptation of
virtual teams. The authors focus on the physical constraints of
working as a team such as distance affecting coordination
amongst individual and instead propose the need to use virtual
teams in overcoming the limitations. The interaction among
different affects the performance of the virtual teams.
The study took the form of a case study exploring the grounded
theory on the performances of three virtual teams in different
parts of the globe for at least 21 months. From the analysis, the
researchers came up with elements that qualify a virtual team as
effective. Afterward, the components facilitate the exploration
of the effectiveness of the team in global organizations. The
scholars consider the organization as dynamic entities operating
in virtual space.
The underlying assumption in the article is that virtual teams
ease interaction amidst long distances. Furthermore, it presents
a team the opportunity to maximize the use of technology in
enhancing efficiency in operations. Another assumption in the
reading is that working in a virtual environment creates much
harmony. The ideas resonate to other researchers’ explanation
in which the authors encouraged the use of the teams in
overcoming the challenges that organization confronts. Several
years of experiences as researchers about team activities
augments the credibility of the study by the scholars. They
deploy the ground zero methodologies in affirming their
assertion. They present finding that relates with the assertion of
many researchers who have exploited the concept.
Han, S. J., & Beyerlein, M. (2016). Framing the effects of
multinational cultural diversity on virtual team processes. Small

10. Group Research, 47(4), 351-383
doi:10.1177/1046496416653480
The study explores the effects of globalization of culture and
the implications it poses on virtual teams. The authors cover the
scope of entities operating in the globalized environment with a
team distributed in different places. The research evaluates the
role of the distribution of the process that affects productivity
in the organization. The empirical study conducted for several
decades serve as the resource for the study. The research takes
place in the context of multicultural virtual teams. Han and
Beyerlein hypothesize that technological revolution increases
dependency on virtual teams that later propel the organization
to greater heights of success.
The underlying assumption is that the advent in the utilization
of technology in the organization has contributed immensely to
the alteration of virtual teams. As a result, firms that
incorporate the technology effectively in the team accomplished
their goals as desired. Han and Beyerlein posit that working in a
diverse setting presents risks if the management overlooks the
capabilities of employees. However, the opposite is likely if the
management exploits the strength of all employees. The
philosophical assumption is the heterogeneous team makes up
effective virtual teams unlike the case of homogenous teams.
The research seeks to evaluate the implication of virtually on
the performance of teams. According to the researchers, Han
and Beyerlein, there is scanty evidence quantifying the
implication of the elements on the outcome of the process. The
shortcoming of the study is that it delves on developments in
technological firms and such can fail when serving in a service
entity. The reliance on information from previous studies can
misguide since the development in the contemporary times pose
with it new problems that require different approach solving.
Mancini, D. J. (2010). Building organizational trust in virtual
teams. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 3, 1–5.

11. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.
The study examines the process of formulation of relationship
in organizations. The scholars use the term trust as the
component for quantification of the level of progress. The
researcher who works at Argosy University insinuates that
virtual teams are complex in nature. The purpose of the study he
undertakes is identifying components that make the team
successful. The authors explore theories that try to affirm the
significance of culture in the organization. The paper focuses on
organizational culture components integral in the formation of
virtual teams as the scope of the study. The research deploys a
qualitative approach in which the scholars explore previous
works on the performance of organizations.
The underlying concept in the study is that cross-cultural
aspects of the organization have the implication of performance
of a team. Another assumption in the study is that the process of
building effective cross-cultural teams is different from the
strategy of establishing effective teams amidst people of
cultural backgrounds. The researcher, who is a lecturer,
acknowledges the variation in culture impacting negatively on
communication amidst individuals. The contextualization of
culture in the organization can help in the conceptualization of
aspect of trust and communication.
The limitation of the research of Mancini is that it delves into
trust issues and cultural aspects of virtual teams. The
assumption that people connect easily in virtual teams is
contestable since people’s preferences in communication differ.
The positive in the reading is that audiences learn the traits that
harmonize the values of humanity. The works of Mancini
presents recommendation on ways of strengthening virtual
teams. Likewise, managers can exploit the same concept in the
establishment of the team in the modern organization.