Advertisement

Structuring Successful Global Virtual Teams

  • Stephanie A. MiloslavicEmail author
  • Jessica L. Wildman
  • Amanda L. Thayer
Chapter

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the theoretical and empirical research on global teams and synthesize useful recommendations for organizations seeking to compose global teams. First, we will discuss the characteristics that are likely to exist in what we refer to as global teams (e.g., distribution, multiple cultures, and time zone differences). Second, we will review the Wildman and colleagues (Human Resource Development Review 11:97–129, 2012) framework of team-level characteristics. Theoretical and empirical research on global teams will be described. Additionally, practical recommendations for global team leaders will be made by using the team-level characteristics framework as a basis for the suggestions.

Keywords

Global team Global virtual team Culture Leadership Communication Structure Team design 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the United States Army Research Laboratory and the United States Army Research Office under Grant W911NF-08-1-0144. The views in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official Army policy.

References

  1. Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., & Warren, J. E. (2009). Predictors of the emergence of transformational leadership in virtual decision teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 651–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  3. Barrick, M. R., Bradley, B. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2007). The moderating role of top management team interdependence: Implications for real teams and working groups. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 544–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595–615.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group and Organization Management, 27(1), 14–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bosch-Sijtsema, P. M., Ruohomäki, V., & Vartiainen, M. (2009). Knowledge work productivity in distributed teams. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(6), 533–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Bowers, C. (2011). Team development and functioning. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 1: Building and developing the organization (pp. 597–650). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1217–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carte, T. A., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. (2006). Emergent leadership in self-managed virtual teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15(4), 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cogliser, C. C., Gardner, W. L., Gavin, M. B., & Broberg, J. C. (2012). Big five personality factors and leader emergence in virtual teams: Relationships with team trustworthiness, member performance contributions, and team performance. Group and Organization Management, 37(6), 752–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organizational Science, 12(3), 346–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cramton, C. D. (2002). Finding common ground in dispersed collaboration. Organizational Dynamics, 30(4), 356–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eatough, E. M., Chang, C.-H., Miloslavic, S. A., & Johnson, R. E. (2011). Relationships of role stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 619–632.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erez, A., LePine, J. A., & Elms, H. (2002). Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55, 929–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fried, Y., Shirom, A., Gilboa, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2008). The mediating effects of job satisfaction and propensity to leave on role-stress—job performance relationships: Combining meta-analysis and structural equation modeling. International Journal of Stress Management, 15(4), 305–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibb, C. A., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (1954). Leadership. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. (Eds.). (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 451–495.Google Scholar
  19. Gibson, C. B., Maznevski, M. L., & Kirkman, B. L. (2009). When does culture matter? In R. S. Bhagat & R. M. Steers (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of culture, organizations, and work (pp. 46–68). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. Personnel Psychology, 61, 227–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goel, S., Sharda, H., & Taniar, D. (2003). Messaging in distributed systems. Computer Systems Science and Engineering, 18, 339–355.Google Scholar
  22. Heckman, R., Crowston, K., & Misiolek, N. (2007). A structural perspective on leadership in virtual teams. Virtuality and Virtualization, pp. 151–168.Google Scholar
  23. Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 43–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 10, 15–41.Google Scholar
  25. Hofstede, G. H. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Hollenbeck, J. R., Moon, H., Ellis, A. P. J., West, B. J., Ilgen, D. R., Sheppard, L., et al. (2002). Structural contingency theory and individual differences: Examination of external and internal person-team fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 599–606.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(1), 16–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organizational Science, 10(6), 791–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Katz-Navon, T. Y., & Erez, M. (2005). When collective- and self-efficacy affect team performance: The role of task interdependence. Small Group Research, 36(4), 437–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kelley, E. (2001). Keys to effective virtual global teams. Academy of Management Executive, 15(2), 132–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31, 700–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kozlowski, S. W., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., & Smith, E. M. (1999). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 240–292). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  37. Maloney, M. M., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. (2006). Building bridges, windows and cultures: Mediating mechanisms between team heterogeneity and performance in global teams. Management International Review, 46(6), 697–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11(5), 473–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., DeChurch, L. A., Jimenez-Rodriguez, M., Wildman, J., & Shuffler, M. (2011). A meta-analytic investigation of virtuality and information sharing in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 214–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moon, H., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Ilgen, D. R., West, B., Ellis, A. J., et al. (2004). Asymmetric adaptability: Dynamic team structures as one-way streets. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 681–695. doi: 10.2307/20159611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Muethel, M., Siebdrat, F., & Hoegl, M. (2012). When do we really need interpersonal trust in globally dispersed new product development teams? R & D Management, 42(1), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nardon, L., & Steers, R. M. (2009). The culture theory jungle: Divergence and convergence in models of national culture. In R. S. Bhagat & R. M. Steers (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of culture, organizations, and work (pp. 3–22). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. O’Leary, M. B., & Cummings, J. N. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 31, 433–452.Google Scholar
  44. O’Leary, M. B., & Mortensen, M. (2010). Go (con)figure: Subgroups, imbalance, and isolates in geographically dispersed teams. Organizational Science, 21(1), 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ocker, R. J., Huang, H., Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (2011). Leadership dynamics in partially distributed teams: An exploratory study of the effects of configuration and distance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 20, 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Örtqvist, D., & Wincent, J. (2006). Prominent consequences of role stress: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Stress Management, 13(4), 399–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago: The historical underpinnings of shared leadership. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 1–18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pinelle, D., Dyck, J., & Gutwin, C. (2003). Aligning work practices and mobile technologies: Groupware design for loosely coupled mobile groups. Proceedings of the Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Conference, Udine, Italy, pp. 177–192.Google Scholar
  50. Privman, R., Hiltz, S. R., & Wang, Y. (2013). In-group (us) versus out-group (them) dynamics and effectiveness in partially distributed teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 56(1), 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rico, R., & Cohen, S. G. (2005). Effects of task interdependence and type of communication on performance in virtual teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 261–274. doi: 10.1108/02683940510589046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rosen, B., Furst, S., & Blackburn, R. (2007). Overcoming barriers to knowledge sharing in virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 36(3), 259–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Saunders, C. S., & Ahuja, M. K. (2006). Are all distributed teams the same? Differentiating between temporary and ongoing distributed teams. Small Group Research, 37(6), 662–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and content of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shuffler, M. L., DiazGranados, D., & Salas, E. (2011). There’s a science for that: Team development interventions in organizations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(6), 365–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shuffler, M. L., Wiese, C. W., Salas, E., & Burke, C. S. (2010). Leading one another across time and space: Exploring shared leadership functions in virtual teams. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 26(1), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Solansky, S. T. (2008). Leadership style and team processes in self-managed teams. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 14(4), 332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stahl, G. K., Mäkelä, K., Zander, L., & Maznevski, M. L. (2010). A look at the bright side of multicultural team diversity. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26, 439–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Straus, S. G. (1996). Getting a clue: The effects of communication media and information distribution on participation and performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 27(1), 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Strauss, 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(1), 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 2–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of Culture’s Consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofestede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405–439.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.Google Scholar
  66. Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. London: The Economist Books.Google Scholar
  67. Webster, J., & Wong, W. K. P. (2008). Comparing traditional and virtual group forms: Identity, communication and trust in naturally occurring project teams. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1), 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wildman, J. L., Thayer, A. L., Rosen, M. A., Salas, E., Mathieu, J. E., & Rayne, S. R. (2012). Task types and team-level attributes: Synthesis of team classification literature. Human Resource Development Review, 11, 97–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zhang, S., Tremaine, M., Egan, R., Milewski, A., O’Sullivan, P., & Fjermestad, J. (2009). Occurrence and effects of leader delegation in virtual software teams. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 5(1), 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie A. Miloslavic
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jessica L. Wildman
    • 2
  • Amanda L. Thayer
    • 3
  1. 1.National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Kennedy Space CenterCape CanaveralUSA
  2. 2.School of Psychology and Institute for Cross Cultural Management, Florida Institute of TechnologyMelbourneUSA
  3. 3.Department of Psychology and Institute for Simulation and TrainingUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations