Virtual Teams and Project Management - Annotated Bibliography Example

A critique report of a selected research article Name of the Student: Name of the Instructor: Name of the course: Code of the course: Submission date: A critique report of a selected research article: Virtual teams and project management Hunsaker, PL. & Hunsaker, JS., 2008, ‘Virtual teams: a leader’s guide’, Team Performance Management, Vol. 14 No. 1/2, pp. 86-101 Introduction This article is cognizant of the extensive dynamics which have characterized the modern business environment mostly as a result of increased globalization and competition. In this regard, enhancements in information and communication technology have been central in enabling more drastic changes than those in recent decades which has generated tasks which are increasingly dynamic and complex. It is against the backdrop of these changes that businesses all around the world have evolved into becoming more adaptive and flexible. This has brought forth the development of virtual teams as organizing work units. Despite the continued contradictions in the definition of the term virtual team, this report will adopt the definition forwarded by Malhotra et. al. (cited by Hunsaker and Hunsaker (2008, p. 87) who perceived virtual teams as groups of co-workers who are both geographically and/or organizationally dispersed whose assemblage is achieved through the utility of a combination of information and telecommunication technologies with the sole purpose of accomplishing an organizational task. Nonetheless, this latter development has been subjected to widespread analysis and research which forms the foundation of this critique report. Against this backdrop, this report will provide a critical perspective of the facts about virtual teams in project management as evidenced in the work by Hunsaker and Hunsaker (2008). Virtual teams; a management paradox This article has forwarded different merits and demerits of virtual teams as expressed by different scholars and research bodies. One of the advantages expressed in this article is that virtual teams they are central in permitting institutions to increasingly have access to most competent and qualified individuals to undertake a particular task. This is often in disregard of their location. Additionally, virtual teams have been credited for facilitating different organizations to formulate and implement swift responses to elevated competition and are also key in the provision of the much needed flexibility to the individuals and collectives whose work is based at home or are on the road (Hunsaker & Hunsaker, 2008, p. 87). Nonetheless, it is a feeling in this report that the need to look for increased competence and qualification of individuals to undertake a certain task who are dispersed across a wide geographical location might compromise the much needed collaboration and trust between the team members. This is mostly apparent when individuals come from different cultural backgrounds which are bound to generate conflicting approaches to issues. This is best epitomized by the individualistic vs. collective cultural backgrounds of the team members. In this case, a Canadian team member (individualistic culture) might feel free and confident in writing a direct and sincere email giving details of a bad phenomenon in the working nature of the members, even going to the extent of outlining specific individuals in the team who have contributed to this phenomenon. On the contrary, this approach can be perceived as being impolite by a Japanese team member (collective culture) who might view it as being arrogant and impolite. This is bound to generate conflicts and mistrust between the team members and inhibit fruitful collaboration between the team members which is detrimental to the success of the team. This is bound to happen even if the individuals are of great competence and qualifications and outlive the advantage of virtual team related to the wealth of expertise mentioned above. Despite this article detailing the role of the team leaders in addressing this challenge through defining the team climate, it does not provide a clear mechanism which can be primed during the team formation which can be instrumental towards solving any eminent conflicts and mistrusts. Secondly, this article alludes to the merit of virtual teams in employee’s recruitment and retention. This is through citing the research findings from a study undertaken by Ceridian Employer Services which revealed that the proven capacity to work in the virtual teams has started a new trend in employees’ recruitment and retention. Nonetheless, it does not reveal the fact that virtual teams are a key cause of social isolation based on the fact that majority of the members experience adverse impacts of lack of physical interaction with other team members. In actual sense, most part of the communications in virtual environment is often task oriented and thus deficient in giving the members the real physical experience of working in a particular organization. Based on this background, they might be have limited attraction in joining a particular company based on their limited knowledge of the people who work there as well as other social aspects of the company which fail to come out in the ‘task-oriented’ virtual environment. This tends to push away potential employees as opposed to attracting them as alluded to in this article. In this case, virtual communities as opposed to virtual teams are perceived in this report as being the most ideal platform of recruiting and retaining employees. In this case, virtual communities can be perceived as online social networks which brings together people with common interests, practices and goals who interact to share knowledge, experiences and information as well as engaging in social interaction (Ardichvili, 2008, p. 542). Thus, when employees interact in the virtual communities and share their experiences and organizational practices, this can be a more ideal platform of recruiting and retaining employees for a company when compared with the virtual teams which are basically task oriented. Challenges of virtual teams Apart from this article expressing different merits associated with virtual teams as supported by extensive business researches, the authors are also cognizant of different challenges which confront this model of project management. In a nutshell, Hunsaker and Hunsaker (2008, p. 90) supports the inference by Cascio (cited by Ebrahim et. al., 2009, p. 2660) who declared that the five core challenges of virtual teams include loss of face-to-face synergies, lack of physical interaction, lack of trust, lack of social interaction as well as a greater concern over reliability and predictability of the team members. To start with the challenge of loss of face-to-face synergies, Hunsaker and Hunsaker (2008, p. 90) recognizes the fact that the key challenge to virtual teams is founded on the fact that their existence is through the computer mediated communication technology as opposed to face-to-face interaction. In this case, the authors tend to increasingly rely on non-facial model of computer based communication like emails which inhibits the likelihood of face-to-face interaction of the team members. Nonetheless, the authors in this article fail to address the recent trends in computer based communication which have helped in surmounting the challenge of face-to-face interaction between team members. This include video conferencing which despite receiving increased criticism as a model of facilitating decision making process in projects, it can be credited for reducing the challenge of loss of face-to-face synergies which are alluded to in this article. The most ideal way of surmounting the challenge of increased cognitive burden in video conferencing which hinders effective face-to-face interaction is outlined by Kahai (2010, p. 1). According to this author, the virtual team leader can elevate the attention logical aspect of the information which is being presented through making it easier for the virtual team members to focus on the logical aspect of the conversation. This can be through having an extra window supplementing the one showing the face of the presenter which is key in allowing all the members to see a running slide presentation with different clear arguments on the topic under discussion. This telecommunication aspect of surmounting the challenge of loss of face-to-face synergy has not been addressed in this article. Another challenge is evidenced by Cohen and Mankin (cited by Hunsaker & Hunsaker, 2008, p. 90) who determined that in most cases, the virtual team members report to different supervisors and they also function as professionals who are empowered and supposed to put into utility their own resources and initiatives to make contributions towards the achievement of the overall team goals. However, it is a feeling in this report that this challenge can also be surmounted through the harmonization of the authority where all the team members are expected to submit their reports. This can be one organization (in case the team members come from different organizations) or a particular individual who is mandated with the role of overseeing the progress of the project. In this case, all the team members are bound to have a central authority who they report to which is bound to reduce the conflicting approaches by the team members emanating from directives from different supervisors. The other challenge which has been credited for posing great threat to the team members is trust or lack of it. This has been revealed by a wide alley of scholars, for instance, Jarvenpaa, (1998), Robey et al., (2000) and Lipnack and Stamps, (2000) (cited by Hunsaker & Hunsaker, 2008, p. 90). It is also important to note that the swift trust theory has been put into utility in examining trust in virtual teams. While furthering this theory, Hunsaker and Hunsaker (2008, p. 90) noted several factors which can be detrimental in negatively influencing trust among members of global virtual teams. These factors include distance, time, cultural differences as well as elevated reliance on computer mediated technology. Researchers have cited several mechanisms which can be used in the efforts to heighten the level of trust among the virtual team members and inferred that trust among these individuals can be established. These researchers in the article under analysis fortified different models of creating trust among members of a virtual team in the initial steps of the group establishment, for instance, creating positive initial impression of trust among the team members in the early stages of group establishment. Nonetheless, they failed to develop mechanisms which can be used to address the issue of trust which can develop in the later parts of the virtual team existence. These issues of trust can emanate from differences in ideology among the team members or bossy attitude of one of the team members which can be difficult to identify in the initial period of the virtual team existence. In this case, it is a profound view in this report that the organizations which have an input in the virtual team through nominating their members can form a common or central group of addressing any conflicts between the team members. This can be integral in solving any conflicting issues beforehand before they worsen to pose significant damage to the trust among the team members. The last challenge which confronts virtual teams in project management as expounded by Hunsaker and Hunsaker (2008, p. 90) is related to communication issues. This is based on the issues of lack of non-verbal cues, the problems in the engagement in spontaneous written communications, the incapacity of benefiting from accidental meeting and learning processes as well as inadequate attention to the socio-emotional issues. This report recognizes that this is a real challenge which can negatively affect the output of a particular virtual team based on the feeling of isolation of some of the team members as well as the feeling of insignificance among some of the team members who fail to be consulted when a certain decision is being arrived at through written communication either from the team leader or one of the team members. Nonetheless, modern technology can be central in solving this issue through a number of ways. One of the key mechanisms is whereby the virtual team members can form an exclusive group in the social media platforms, for instance, in Facebook or Hangout circles in Google+. In this case, all the members can engage in spontaneous written communication when they are logged in to these groups, share ideas, update each other on any current issues which can pose extensive impacts on the learning process of the entire virtual team members who are located in different parts of the globe. This mechanism can be an ideal platform of addressing the challenge of communication issues among the team members in the modern virtual teams which has not been addressed in this article. The leadership function in virtual teams According to Hunsaker and Hunsaker (2008, p. 91), team leaders in a virtual team have two primary functions namely, team development and performance management. This report is in concurrence with the authors that the team leader ought to provide a clear and engaging direction to the team members. This undertaking is integral in forging a more self-managing team. Nonetheless, the possibility of some of the team members, despite possessing proven and tested competence in a given field, having intrinsic weaknesses is not addressed in this article. This is whereby some of the team members might be forwarded by their respective organizations, having exhibited impressive skills in conventional teams but have limited knowledge in virtual teams. In this case, the team leader is bound to be confronted by extensive challenge in dealing with such individuals who might have been predisposed to continued monitoring and supervision in their previous team work. This is founded on the fact that such team members might face widespread challenges in the self-regulating environment in the virtual team set-up. Additionally, this article can be commended for broadly outlining the functions of the team leader which can contribute to the effectiveness of the team, for instance, motivation of the team members, setting specific guidelines, mission and goals of the team as well as training team members on the desired routines among other functions. Nonetheless, it fails to specify the role of the team leader in addressing non-compliance of some of the team members, either through fines or any other disciplinary measure. Lastly, the article by Hunsaker and Hunsaker (2008) has highlighted five things which can be done by the leader aimed at boosting trust among virtual team members. These include setting goals and expectations, creating face time, providing on-going feedback, fostering cultural understanding as well as show-casing team members’ competence. However, this article does not provide a clear mechanism which can be used by the team leader in case of continued mistrust among the team members. Leading virtual teams over the life of a project Hunsaker and Hunsaker (2008, p. 94) outlined four basic stages of a project timeline which are central in assisting the project leader in the management of virtual teams over the life a project. The stages outlined and explained by these authors include pre-project stage, project initiation, mid-stream and wrap-up. Additionally, these authors expound on the different roles that the team leader ought to undertake in the efforts to ensure the effectiveness of the virtual team. Nonetheless, it is a feeling in this report that there is an integral step between the second and the third stage which was not addressed in this article. This realization is founded on the more comprehensive model named the Tuckman’s model of group development. In this case, Tuckman identified five stages which are central in the developmental process of any team, be it convectional or virtual. These are forming, storming, norming, performing and lastly, adjourning (Tuckman, 1965, p. 396). Thus, it is felt in this report that the stage which has been omitted in the Hunsaker and Hunsaker (2008) guidelines for managing virtual teams over the life of a project is the storming stage borrowed from the Tuckman’s model. According to Tuckman (1965, p. 396), this is a stage which is characterized by extensive conflict revolving around the interpersonal issues as well as simultaneous response to tasks by the team members. Additionally, this stage sees the members of the team being preoccupied with the conflict based on power divisions as they try to ascertain who possess power and authority in the group mostly when the authority hierarchy is not well defined (Preston-Shoot, 1987, p. 35). This can be a stage in the development of a virtual team whereby each team member can try to exhibit dominance of the approach to issues apparent in the task as forwarded by his/her supervisor. This is mostly bound to happen if the team members report to different supervisors which had been cited as being a major challenge to virtual teams in a preceding section. In this case, the team members can tend to exert the dominance of their individual approach to team issues as a result of the inherent belief and feeling of supremacy of their supervisor as opposed to the others. Additionally, there might be some cultural divergence issues which were not unearthed in the pre-project and the project initiation phases which can become evident when the actual work begins. This is bound to create conflict between the team members and both of the above cases, the team leader requires extensive skills in problem solving in this stage whose success is key in determining the future direction of the team. However, this report concurs with the system of learning from learnt lessons as well as recognizing success as expounded in the latter section of this article. Conclusion The preceding report has recognized the important role of virtual teams in the contemporary business environment. This is founded on increased competition, globalization and technological advancement, all of which have contributed to the increased prominence of virtual teams. Additionally, despite the article by Hunsaker and Hunsaker (2008) providing several merits of virtual teams as supported by diverse business research, this report has critically addressed the issues which can emanate from these merits. On the other hand, this report has investigated the various challenges which confront virtual teams and the inadequacy of the article under analysis to provide ideal solutions to address these challenges. Towards this end, this report has proposed different mechanisms supported by recent technology to surmount these challenges, for instance, using video conferencing to address the challenge of lack of face-to-face synergy. Moreover, this review has critically analyzed the leadership function in virtual teams and lastly expounded on an integral stage of norming which is missing from the guidelines for managing virtual teams over the life of a project in this article. References Ardichvili, A., 2008, ‘Learning and Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities of Practice: Motivators, Barriers, and Enablers’, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 541-554. Ebrahim, NA., et. al., 2009, ‘Virtual Teams: a Literature Review’, Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 2653-2669. Hunsaker, PL. & Hunsaker, JS., 2008, ‘Virtual teams: a leader’s guide’, Team Performance Management, Vol. 14 No. 1/2, pp. 86-101 Kahai, S., 2010, ‘Is video conferencing a good substitute for face-to-face meetings?’, retrieved 5th July, 2013, < http://www.leadingvirtually.com/is-video-conferencing-a-good-substitute-for-face-to-face-meetings/> Preston-Shoot, M., 1987, Effective Groupwork, Macmillan, Houndsmills. Tuckman, BW, 1965, Developmental Sequence in Small Groups, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 63, No. 6, pp. 384-399. Read More