In this zone, we critically discuss the phenomenon of virtual teams and explore the challenges of managing a team in the absence of co-location.
The utilisation of virtual teams as a medium to facilitate boundaryless, collaborative knowledge sharing, communication and task completion has risen dramatically in recent years and become the norm in many organisations51,52 Defined as ‘groups of geographically and/or organisationally dispersed coworkers that are assembled using a combination of telecommunications and information technologies to accomplish an organisational task’53 (p. 18), virtual teams enable organisations to capitalise on increased resource utilisation, greater flexibility and wider access to knowledge, expertise and creativity outside the organisation’s boundaries.51,54 Significantly, Townsend et al.’s53 definition posits that virtual teams are not exclusively found in geographically dispersed regions; they can be located within the same office or even country.
The extent of a team’s virtuality is, according to Gibson and Cohen,55 multidimensional and complex. Such complexity embodies three key dimensions, which Kirkman et al.56 espouse transcend the technology used to support virtual working and the team’s raison d'être.
First, the proportion of time the team interact and work facetoface compared to virtually. Second, the time they spend at any one location. In this dimension, the highest level of virtuality occurs when all team members work at geographically distant locations. Third, the proportion of time individuals devote to a virtual team project, which may only be a few hours a month, in comparison to time they spend on completing other duties. Berry54 contends that a further defining feature is the amount of computermediated communication (CMC) technology the team uses. He proposes that the level of virtuality increases as the team’s reliance on electronic communication intensifies.
According to Dulebohn and Hoch,57 despite widening research and theorisation on, and a growing practitioner interest in, virtual teams, little is known about how to successfully manage them and their dynamics.
Managers are thus faced with a plethora of challenges, which Berry and Nydegger and Nydegger58 advise must be addressed if virtual teams are to be effectively utilised within the organisation. First, communication can be hindered by the misinterpretation and miscommunication of messages, due to the absence of nonverbal cues, tone of voice and slow, delayed or missing information and feedback.51 Second, engagement in teamwork and collaboration may be potentially lower, leading to reduced motivation and productivity. Third, team members may experience feelings of detachment and isolation from colleagues and the work itself, due to the absence of colocation, raised levels of social distance and lack of identity.54,55 Fourth, managers may find it difficult, though, one could argue, not impossible, to manage and monitor performance, particularly in teams that operate in geographically dispersed and remote locations and in situations where levels of team cohesion, work satisfaction and cooperative behaviour have decreased.55 Additionally, managers are challenged to address the major issue of a reduction in tacit knowledge creation, sharing and collaboration that are normally generated and enhanced through socialisation, colocation and facetoface contact.59, 60 This lack of interaction may lead to knowledge hoarding and protectionism,61 a consequence of which is duplication of effort and increased costs.62 The above scenario paints a rather negative and, arguably, onerous portrait of utilising virtual teams in the organisation. However, in support of virtual teams, Thiefels63 insists that ‘remote collaboration doesn’t have to be hard.’ She suggests, albeit simplistically, that all managers need to do to promote collaborative, virtual working is to assemble the organisation’s basic communication tools, such as email and telephone, together with regular scheduled meetings. In this way, she espouses, ‘you’ll quickly realise that getting employees to collaborate virtually is similar to doing so in personŒ.Œ.Œ.Œyou have the tools and skills, you just have to use them differently.’ Rebecca Ranninger,64 former Executive Vice President and Chief HR Officer of Symantec, argues that it is more complex than Thiefels infers.
Although working flexibly and with more freedom has been a good and positive move for her organisation and has resulted in happier employees, she hints that the twenty first century, virtual, always on workplace has created a psychology whereby individuals find it more difficult to dichotomise between work and their home lives. Technology, she protests, has taken away ‘the limitations of time and space.’ Ranninger caveats that the communalexperience of sitting around a table, and the camaraderie it generates, is lost in a virtual world. She lamented ‘how do we ensure that people have the same kind of experience they used to get sitting in a room when they are no longer in the same hemisphere?’ She notes the importance of managers ensuring that virtual team members remain ‘connected to work in a human way’ and, crucially, do not become ‘a voice on the phone and a line on a screen.’
Although virtual teams offer organisations greater flexibility, enhanced team member diversity and access to a wider global knowledge pool, Nydegger and Nydegger caveat that managers may resent their implementation because it might threaten their power base, due to the autonomous nature of virtual team working. To counter this, Ranninger suggests that organisations can initiate ‘remote management’
training, which develops specific skills and techniques to manage a local and international cadre of diverse individuals and the inevitable stresses and complexities that accompany managing virtual teams, regardless of their location and dimension of virtuality.

To conclude, virtual teams are a global phenomenon.
As well as providing a raft of benefits to organisations in terms of increased flexibility and access to a wider pool of knowledge and expertise, Berry caveats that the adoption of virtual teams can only be successful if organisations create an environment that is conducive to effective virtual teamwork and importantly, invest in a technological infrastructure that supports the differing dimensions of virtuality and knowledge and informational needs of team members. To avert the negativities posed by the implementation of virtual teams, Nydegger and Nydegger posit that organisations must ensure their managers have bought into, and engaged with, virtualisation programmes and be appropriately supported and trained to manage the complexities of virtual working. If not, Berry advises that the failure or success of virtual teams, or indeed the organisation itself, ‘may well be a consequence of inept leadership or management, more than a consequence of technology or other factors.’

1.Virtual teams can yield a raft of benefits to an organisation, but they also have their drawbacks. Write a balanced business case for the implementation of a virtual team. Justify your case with reference to theory and practice.

2.How can organisations mitigate against the feelings of detachment and isolation that Berry and Gibson and Cohen suggest virtual team members often experience?

3.Thiefels advocates that ‘remote collaboration doesn’t have to be hard.’ To what extent do you agree with her view?