Virtual Teams are a Double-edged Sword

Building a virtual team does not pre-determine success. As Schmidt et al. (2008) describe, virtual teams (VTs) can be a double-edged sword in the sense that while many managers may feel VTGs can improve productivity, some researchers suggest that VT employees often feel isolated, and can hide counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) such as social loafing. Organizational identification (OI) is vulnerable in a VT setting especially since physical presence is absent (Yan, 2008). Being a part of a larger organization is more difficult to establish in VTs when shared goals and values are poorly related (Yan, 2008). Throughout her chapter, Yan (2008) describes the critical need for VT leadership to foster shared organizational mission and vision from the ground up as it were, since in her opinion, forcing VT members to share understandings does not promote togetherness. More to the point, Schmidt et al. (2008) proposed that working remotely in a virtual setting does not promote economic effectiveness. Contrary to some, managing virtual and hybrid teams comes with added pressure, which has a psychological and social cost paid by VT members (Schmidt et al. 2008).

Maduka et al. (2017) studied managerial aptitude and skill in their paper on team leadership. The researchers suggest there is a place for both transactional and transformational leadership styles, their results suggest that the transformational style is more effective in VT management. As Northouse (pp. 163-177, 2019) describes, transformational leaders, encourage employee growth. They encourage employees to perform beyond what is normally expected and focus on employee motives, values, and work ethic (Northouse, 2019). Maduka et al. (2017) highlighted key competencies needed for successful VT leaders including the ability to build trust, the ability to integrate team members, effective communication, organization team goals, technological prowess, and quality decision making, among others. Low levels of cultural intelligence, poorly understood technology, ineffective communication, and low levels of trust leading to poor team cohesion accounted for poor virtual team performance (Maduka et al. 2017).

Following an input-process-outcome framework, Dulebohn and Hoch (2017) proposed a model for virtual team management that offered three levels of inputs, moderators, team processes, and two levels of outcomes. The authors describe organizational factors, team leadership, and team composition as inputs that are moderated by virtuality, task complexity and interdependence, and team context. Within the team itself, member emotional investment, motivations, behaviors, and cognitions inform member relationships. Team processes feed outcomes that include performance, effectiveness at the team level. At the individual level, member satisfaction, commitment, effectiveness, and performance are also moderated by virtuality, task complexity, and interdependence (Dulebohn & Hoch, 2017).

Dulebohn, J. H., & Hoch, J. E. (2017). Virtual teams in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 569–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.004

Maduka, N. S., Edwards, H., Greenwood, D., Osborne, A., & Babatunde, S. O. (2018). Analysis of competencies for effective virtual team leadership in building successful organisations. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(2), 696–712. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-08-2016-0124

Northouse, P. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (Eighth). Sage.

Schmidt, C., Temple, B. K., McCready, A., Newman, J., & Kinzler, S. C. (2008). Virtuality in organizational team environments: Concept, measurement, and effects in the context of sustainable management. In N. Panteli & M. Chiasson (Eds.), Exploring virtuality within and beyond organizations: Social, global and local dimensions (pp. 95–125). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230593978_5

Yan, L. (2008). Regulated and emergent identifications: The case of a virtual organization. In N. Panteli & M. Chiasson (Eds.), Exploring virtuality within and beyond organizations: Social, global and local dimensions (pp. 126–150). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230593978_6