For the below case can you give me the insight to discuss your results to served by including a discussion of your leadership implications along side for the problems identified included poor communication, coordination, difficulty in team building and overdependence on technology

Also please adress

What are the principal causative factors of the problems?

Were they reasonably foreseeable?

Who or which groups are responsible, what was their role? Were there any marginalized or discounted groups or perspectives?

How do the facts affect the client, subjects or victims of your case study? Are there leadership or ethical gaps, what leadership styles prevailed throughout?

What is the best possible outcome, what are your recommendations? Are there any inter-disciplinary (eg. legal, regulatory, HR, media ...) considerations?

Case: When Teammates Do Not Respond: Managing Virtual Project Teams

Introduction

Virtual teams are a common workforce scenario in which individuals, who are often independent contractors and are geographically-dispersed, rely on technology to work remotely on a shared project or goal. Forming virtual teams offers companies, such as DigiCo, the ability to access relevant expertise and the best talent, regardless of location. It also offers the individuals involved temporal and spatial flexibility, and flexibility in scheduling for work-life balance as well as the opportunity to work on a variety of projects concurrently.

DigiCo describes itself as "a company at the forefront of digital and remote working and remote work management. It uses highly skilled independent workers to carry out information handling tasks for a wide range of organisations in the public and private sectors. Distance is immaterial. Through a combination of human resources and digital technologies, DigiCo has established valuable global connections and carries out contracts for clients worldwide". Thus, DigiCo has the role of a coordinating agent between individual contractors and client organisations and is responsible for managing client projects until their completion, when its virtual project teams also disperse. It forms project teams by drawing from its own list of registered individuals in its web-based skills database. In addition to the opportunities that virtual teams have - especially the ability to access talent upon need and regardless of location - there are challenges too. These challenges include: managing distance and diversity, building integration among members who are together for a short period of time, developing team identity, building trust and commitment, and resolving conflict.

On one DigiCo contract, the FLEC project, these challenges arose when the original assessment of the project complexity proved incorrect and team members were forced to work on a project that was more demanding and time-consuming than initially anticipated. To make matters more challenging, the client needs shifted and delivery dates were pushed up, leaving limited time for team building in the face of tight deadlines that required immediate and strong commitment from all team members. DigiCo manager, Marie, was tasked with helping the project run smoothly and thus addressing the challenges that these project-related problems created for her virtual team. She was frustrated by her team members' inability to commit to the constant online 'presence' that would allow them to meet client deadlines. She wondered about the depth of their commitment to the project and how she could improve their commitment, their online presence and their productivity.

The Project Background

The FLEC project was a result of a contract signed between DigiCo in the United Kingdom and a U.S. client and involved the translation of engineering data from Spanish into English (approximately 600,000 items) at a specific cost per item. The initial agreement was to return the translated work within two months of delivery.

Upon signing this contract, Marie began the project by seeking people who had the appropriate skills to work on the project. Initially, the project managers were selected: three project team supervisors responsible for the contractors' work, a language quality manager responsible for checking the quality of the translated work and a technical quality manager with IT responsibility. All of the project managers were registered members on DigiCo's skills database and had previous work experience with DigiCo projects but had not previously worked together on the same project. Using the skills database and advertisements, individual contractors were approached and asked to identify how many hours per week they could work on the project. As one contractor indicated: "I never have 'all my eggs in one basket' and at any one time I am working for three to six companies..."

When contractors agreed to the appropriate availability for the project, a sample data file was sent to those individuals who were interested in joining the FLEC project so that they could understand the nature of the task before formally committing to the project. Providing clarity on the project requirements, notably task complexity and time requirements, was important for both DigiCo, which wanted to recruit individuals who would give the time and effort required, and for the individual contractors involved. As one contractor noted:

"I personally have worked on a contingent basis for almost 20 years and am very used to working independently. I like to meet at least one manager before I start work on a project and it is very important to have access to someone via electronic mail or telephone so that any questions can be asked and answered before time is wasted doing the wrong thing. It is important to have clear instructions for the work required"

Following negotiations, 25 individual contractors from Scotland, England and Canada were recruited to work on the project and formal contracts were signed.

Before the official start of the project, a face-to-face meeting, which most of the recruited members attended, was organised. During this meeting, the structure and organisation of the project was explained and members had the opportunity to meet each other and find out more information about DigiCo. This meeting was also an opportunity to officially launch the project and welcome everyone involved. Marie had telephone conversations with those who did not attend the meeting in order to explain the project characteristics and requirements.

The Project Workflow

DigiCo manager Marie served as the core facilitator and coordinator of the project, while another DigiCo executive, Charlie, was responsible for client negotiations electronic mail was chosen as the primary medium for FLEC project communication because, although it was text-based and asynchronous, it was widely available among all FLEC members and could enable messages to reach multi-recipients almost simultaneously. For security, work files were allocated and shared using an online platform that was accessible by all project participants.

Three project teams were set up and each team had its own project manager who was responsible for allocating files to the team members and for dealing with any queries or problems that occurred within the team. Project supervisors also had direct contact with Marie and the quality managers. Remuneration was based on each individual's performance, depending on the number of files translated. Due to the nature of the task, there was low task inter-dependence between team members themselves, but there was a high inter-dependence between individual members and project supervisors as members primarily communicated with their respective project supervisors for workfile allocation, queries and other issues.

The Challenges

At an early stage of the project, it became apparent that the task involved was more difficult and more time-consuming than anticipated. The translations were not as straightforward as the sample files had led everyone to expect. Moreover, the client kept demanding that the final output was delivered earlier than the agreed date, imposing more pressure on DigiCo, its project managers, supervisors and team members. Within this climate, it became clear that the active involvement of all members in performing the required tasks was even more critical for the effective and timely completion of the project.

With the use of asynchronous communication, and the lack of social cues in online communication in general, it was becoming difficult to ascertain whether team members were present for the FLEC project. Frequent online 'presence,' which implies that one is available and psychologically committed to the project or work at hand, was clearly important to the FLEC project, with work becoming more demanding and deadlines becoming tighter.

Some members of the FLEC team used electronic mail to explain their online presence. For example, they informed others when they had to be away from the project and even explained why:

"Apologies all around -...Got to London to find household in chaos after a particularly invasive burglary last night, so the rest of the day has been spent in talking to police officers, getting locksmiths to come and change the locks (the burglar stole a bag containing the house keys - very creepy), and hassling insurance companies. So, I am afraid I haven't had time to for anything I said I would do. And now off to Brussels. So - please forgive me - I shall attend to everything when I am back in London on the 21^st..." (quality manager)

"...Sorry about the delays today - I was blaming the server but apparently ... some workmen were digging up our road [and] doing something to the telephone lines. Back to normal late in the day..." (project supervisor).

One member, Kate, also explained the reasons for her unavailability, which kept her away from the project, in an electronic mail she sent to all involved in the project:

"First of all, apologies for not having responded to the many enquiries, helpful and informative mails that I have received over the last two weeks. I have been on holiday in Canada with my family introducing our new addition to her Canadian relatives (my husband is from Toronto). Secondly, I would like to respond to all the mails ..." (individual translator contractor).

Virtual working offers several opportunities to individuals and organisations, and the FLEC team was clearly taking advantage of the opportunity to sustain a work-life balance with the flexibility it provides, as the FLEC teamelectronic mails indicated.

Despite these explanations about their 'absences,' there were several cases of members failing to communicate with others in a timely manner. Such cases of silence during the project were making it difficult for DigiCo to enjoy the benefits of working with virtual teams. The FLEC teams' poor communication was causing delays in work submission and also causing frequent frustration. For example, Marie sent an electronic mail to her executive director to consult on how to manage her team:

"... what do you think about [Mary]? She has had flu, and I left a message saying 'don't worry, and get in touch when you're better', but there is still no word from her. Do you think we should suggest that she goes on to an 'as perform' basis? I do grudge hiring a dog and barking myself or whatever the expression is, and so far that's what it feels like! ..." (Marie to executive director)

Further, this sort of behaviour led to frustrations among team members:

"I did notice sometimes on [this] project that my project supervisor did not always reply to all my electronic mail queries - this could be very frustrating" (individual translator contractor).

Another individual contractor noted the following in an electronic mail to the director:

"...Also, I don't want to appear to be complaining but I wrote to [my project supervisor] on Thursday and Friday saying I need more files - no response. I finished my last file at 13:30 today and sent him another note - still no reply. Is there a better way of doing this? It's better all round if I can many files as I can with the first deadline approaching."

The lack of timely communication was becoming a growing problem for the FLEC project. electronic mail were not being responded to and members were not receiving work files in a timely manner, all of which were causing productivity and co-worker relations to suffer. It was becoming clear that the dispersed team was struggling to bond and develop the team identity that would help them commit towards working together for their common project goal.

The Management Issue

Marie was frustrated by the fact that several of her contracted staff were not responding to emails, which was causing delays on the project and jeopardising team performance. She hoped that all team members were equally committed to the project but wondered if that was a reasonable expectation when managing a virtual team. To ensure her team met its deadlines and goals, Marie reflected on the challenges she'd faced with managing this virtual team. She contemplated how she could promote and sustain commitment within this virtual team project. Should she rely on asynchronous email alone for communication and project delivery? Or was synchronous online meeting and call time required to improve team bonding and identity, establish project expectations, build a team identity, manage interactions and deadlines and recognise achievements?

Discussion Questions

• 1.One of the benefits of working with virtual teams is flexibility.
  • a.Assess the benefits and challenges of being a virtual team member, as presented in this case.

• b.What are the benefits and challenges for organisations working with a virtual team?

• 2.Assess the quotations from the virtual team and determine how project members' lack of communication can jeopardise the success of the FLEC project. What else could be contributing to the issues that challenged team bonding and identity in this case?

• 3.How could Marie respond to the challenges that the FLEC project faces?

• 4.How could virtual project leaders in general avoid these challenges and effectively manage virtual teams?