Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2005.01.002Get rights and content

Abstract

This review summarizes empirical research on the management of virtual teams, i.e., distributed work teams whose members predominantly communicate and coordinate their work via electronic media (e-mail, telephone, video-conference, etc.). Instead of considering virtual teams as qualitatively distinct from conventional teams, the degree of “virtuality” of teams is understood as a dimensional attribute. This review is guided by a lifecycle model in which five phases are distinguished in the management of teams with high virtuality: Preparation, launch, performance management, team development, and disbanding. The main focus of the review is on quantitative research with existing virtual teams in organizational contexts. However, experimental research and case studies are considered when no field studies are available. The major research results are summarized for human resource management tasks within these phases, and recommendations for practitioners are derived.

Introduction

In light of the increasing de-centralization and globalization of work processes, many organizations have responded to their dynamic environments by introducing virtual teams, in which members are geographically dispersed and coordinate their work predominantly with electronic information and communication technologies (e-mail, video-conferencing, etc.). Additionally, the rapid development of new communication technologies such as the Internet has accelerated this trend so that today, most of the larger business organizations employ virtual teams to some degree (Duarte & Snyder, 1999, Gibson & Cohen, 2003, Hinds & Kiesler, 2002, Townsend et al., 1998). For instance, a recent survey among 376 business managers from different branches in Germany (AFW, 2002) revealed that about 20% of the managers worked predominantly as a member of a virtual team, and about 40% worked at least temporarily in virtual teams. Similar numbers have been reported for other countries (Gibson & Cohen, 2003, Hinds & Kiesler, 2002). Virtual teams can be found in various fields, such as R&D, problem solving task forces, or customer services, and they also exist in non-economic organizations such as virtual collaboratories in sciences (e.g., Finholt, 2002).

Despite the growing prevalence of this new work form, little is known about the management of virtual teams and the human resources within these teams (Axtell et al., 2004, Kirkman et al., 2004). A number of conceptual papers provide initial suggestions based on theoretical considerations, experience reports and explorative case studies (for recent reviews see Axtell et al., 2004, Gibson & Cohen, 2003, Hinds & Kiesler, 2002, Powell et al., 2004). However, as a next step, these suggestions should be compared with empirical results from quantitative (field) studies using larger sample sizes. Currently, such comparisons are difficult because the available research is published in quite different journals and books. Accordingly, the main objectives of this review are:

  • a)

    To summarize empirical research relevant for the management of virtual teams and the human resource management (HRM) within this context,

  • b)

    To provide a conceptual model for the integration of this research, and

  • c)

    To derive recommendations for HRM practices based on the research available.

Thus, extending earlier work, this paper provides a comprehensive review on the different management tasks in virtual teams based on empirical research. After providing a definition of virtual teams, an integrative lifecycle model of virtual teams will be presented that covers crucial HRM issues such as selection, performance management, rewards and personnel development, but also contains new issues such as the question of a constructive disbanding of virtual teams. The following presentation of the available empirical work is guided by this lifecycle model summarizing empirical results and their implications for each of these issues. In contrast to research on computer-mediated collaboration (CMC) that predominantly compares media effects between computer-mediated and face-to-face groups using experimental settings (cf. Baltes et al., 2002, Fjermestad & Hiltz, 1998), this review focuses particularly on quantitative field research of existing virtual teams in order to acknowledge effects of time and organizational context. However, results from experimental CMC research as well as case studies and experience reports will be considered for issues that have not yet been addressed by quantitative field studies.1

Section snippets

Definition of virtual teams

Distributed work across different locations and/or working times is not a phenomenon of the last 15 years. There are many instructive examples of how people collaborated across larger distances in earlier times (King & Frost, 2002, O'Leary et al., 2002). However, with the rapid development of electronic information and communication media in the last years, distributed work has become much easier, faster and more efficient. The attribute “virtual” designates distributed work that is

A lifecycle model of virtual team management

At this early state of research on teams with high degrees of virtuality, we consider a heuristic lifecycle model as most appropriate to organize the different topics relevant for virtual team management. As with work teams in general (Hackman, 1987, McGrath, 1991), developmental aspects have to be considered acknowledging that different management tasks are crucial at different phases of a team implementation process (for case examples with virtual teams, see Gluesing et al., 2003). Moreover,

Phase A: preparations

The initial task during the implementation of a team is the definition of the general purpose of the team together with the determination of the level of virtuality that might be appropriate to achieve these goals. These decisions are usually determined by strategic factors such as mergers, increase of the market span, cost reductions, flexibility and reactivity to the market, etc. However, conceptual and empirical work is desirable examining what levels of virtuality are suited for which task

Phase B: launch

Almost all authors of conceptual work on virtual team management recommend that, in the beginning of virtual teamwork, all members should meet each other face-to-face (e.g., Duarte & Snyder, 1999, Gibson & Cohen, 2003, Haywood, 1998, Lipnack & Stamps, 1997, Powell et al., 2004, Warkentin & Beranek, 1999). Crucial elements of such a “kick-off” workshop are getting acquainted with the other team members, clarifying the team goals, clarifying the roles and functions of the team members,

Phase C: performance management

After the launch of a virtual team, work effectiveness and a constructive team climate has to be maintained using performance management strategies (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). The following discussion is again restricted to issues on which empirical results are already available. These issues are leadership, communication within virtual teams, team members' motivation, and knowledge management.

Phase D: training and team development

In addition to the discussed regulation practices, virtual teams can be supported by personnel and team development interventions. The development of such training concepts should be based on an empirical assessment of the needs and/or deficits of the team and its members, and the effectiveness of the trainings should be evaluated empirically. Possible foci of personnel development activities are the team leaders/moderators, the team members, or the team as a whole.

Suggestions for the training

Phase E: disbanding and re-integration

Finally, the disbanding of virtual teams and the re-integration of the team members is an important issue that has been neglected not only in empirical but also in most of the conceptual work on virtual teams. However, particularly when virtual project teams have only a short life-time (“transient” teams) and reform again quickly, careful and constructive disbanding is mandatory in order to maintain high motivation and satisfaction among the employees. According to Bouas and Arrow (1996),

Summary and further research

The main objectives of this review were to summarize the available empirical research related to the management of virtual teams, to integrate this research into a lifecycle model, and to enable recommendations for practitioners. In doing so, we focused predominantly on quantitative studies of existing teams in organizational settings while experimental or case studies were considered when no field studies were available. Concrete practical recommendations are already mentioned in each of the

Acknowledgements

We thank Carolyn Axtell and Julie Lyon for their helpful comments on an earlier version of the paper.

References (130)

  • D.A. Moore et al.

    Long and short routes to success in electronically mediated negotiation: Group affiliations and good vibrations

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (1999)
  • AFW, 2002. Mythos Team auf dem Prüfstand: Teamarbeit in deutschen Unternehmen [The myth of team being tested: Teamwork...
  • J.R. Aiello et al.

    Electronic performance monitoring and social context: Impact on productivity and stress

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1995)
  • C.M. Axtell et al.

    Virtual teams: Collaborating across distance

  • D.E. Bailey et al.

    A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work

    Journal of Organizational Behavior

    (2002)
  • A. Bandura

    Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change

    Psychological Review

    (1977)
  • M.R. Barrick et al.

    Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1998)
  • M. Beer et al.

    Managing human assets: The groundbreaking Harvard Business School program

    (1985)
  • B.S. Bell et al.

    A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership

    Group and Organization Management

    (2002)
  • I. Benbasat et al.

    The effects of group, task, context, and technology variables on the usefulness of grup support systems: A meta-analysis of experimental studies

    Small Group Research

    (1993)
  • R. Blackburn et al.

    Building a winning virtual team. KSAs, selection, training, and evaluation

  • P. Bordia

    Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: A synthesis of the experimental literature

    The Journal of Business Communication

    (1997)
  • N. Bos et al.

    Effects of four computer-mediated communications channels on trust development

  • K.S. Bouas et al.

    The development of group identity in computer and face-to-face groups with membership change

    Computer Supported Cooperative Work

    (1996)
  • C.A. Bowers et al.

    When member homogeneity is needed in work teams: A meta-analysis

    Small Group Research

    (2000)
  • R.O. Briggs et al.

    1001 unanswered research questions in GSS

    Journal of Management Information Systems

    (1998)
  • L. Chidambram

    Relational development in computer-supported groups

    MIS Quarterly

    (1996)
  • T. Connolly

    Electronic brainstorming: Science meets technology in the group meeting room

  • T. Connolly et al.

    Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups

    Management Science

    (1990)
  • A. Cummings et al.

    Developing complex group products: Idea combination in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups

    Computer Supported Cooperative Work

    (1996)
  • R.L. Daft et al.

    Message equivocality, media selection, and performance: Implications for information systems

    Management Information Systems Quarterly

    (1987)
  • R. Davidson et al.

    Electronic performance monitoring: A laboratory investigation of the influence of monitoring and difficulty on task performance, mood state, and self-reported stress levels

    Journal of Applied Social Psychology

    (2000)
  • J.S. DeMatteo et al.

    Team-based rewards: Current empirical evidence and directions for future research

  • A.R. Dennis et al.

    Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1993)
  • A.R. Dennis et al.

    Investigating the moderators of the Group Support Systems use with meta-analysis

    Journal of Management Information Systems

    (2002)
  • G. DeSanctis et al.

    Coordination of information technology management: Team-based structures and computer-based communication systems

    Journal of Management Information Systems

    (1994)
  • G. DeSanctis et al.

    Communication processes for virtual organizations

    Organization Science

    (1999)
  • D.J. Devine et al.

    Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness

    Small Group Research

    (1999)
  • E.A. Douthitt et al.

    The role of participation and control in effects of computer monitoring on fairness perceptions, task satisfaction, and performance

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2001)
  • D.L. Duarte et al.

    Mastering virtual teams

    (1999)
  • K. Eisenhardt

    Building theories from case study research

    Academy of Management Review

    (1998)
  • T.A. Finholt

    Collaboratories

    Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

    (2002)
  • T. Finholt et al.

    Communication and performance in ad hoc task groups

  • J. Fjermestad et al.

    An assessment of Group Support Systems experimental research: Methodology and results

    Journal of Management Information Systems

    (1998)
  • J. Fjermestad et al.

    Group support systems: A descriptive evaluation of case and field studies

    Journal of Management Information Systems

    (2000)
  • R.B. Gallupe et al.

    Blocking electronic brainstorms

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1994)
  • Geister, S. (2004). Development and evaluation of an Online-Feedback-System for virtual teams. Unpublished...
  • S. Geister et al.

    A group development system for improving motivation, performance and team climate in virtual teams

  • J.C. Gluesing et al.

    The development of global virtual teams

  • Cited by (711)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text