Order 1428946: Exploring Supervisor and Peer Support on US Army Junior Leader’s Transfer of Training

The_Challenges_of_Virtual_Lead.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Order 1428946: Exploring Supervisor and Peer Support on US Army Junior Leader’s Transfer of Training

Walden University

College of Management and Technology

This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by

Verna-Kay Smith

has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,

and that any and all revisions required by

the review committee have been made.

Review Committee

Dr. John Kitoko, Committee Chairperson, Management Faculty

Dr. Kenneth Levitt, Committee Member, Management Faculty

Dr. Judith Forbes, University Reviewer, Management Faculty

Chief Academic Officer

Eric Riedel, Ph.D.

Walden University

2018

Abstract

The Challenges of Virtual Leadership Affecting Project Delivery in the Public Sector

Verna-Kay Smith

MBA, University of Maryland, University Colleges, 2013

MHRM, University of Maryland, University Colleges, 2011

BS, Kaplan University, 2006

Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Management and Technology

Walden University

November 2018

Abstract

Leaders of the U.S. government and U.S. organizations continue to seek information to

mitigate risk and improve project deliverables in virtual environments. The problem

addressed in this study was the rapid growth of technology in virtual workplaces that

causes organizational leaders to concentrate on infrastructure and technology. The

purpose of the exploratory case study was to understand the challenges virtual leaders

encounter in the government environment that affect project delivery. The research

questions were designed to examine the challenges virtual team leaders encounter while

maintaining their roles and responsibilities to complete a project successfully in a timely

manner. The theory of constraints was the framework used to address the problem of

virtual leaders who struggle to complete project deliverables. Data were collected from

11 government virtual leaders via an online anonymous questionnaire and were

triangulated via a reflective journal and notes from a checklist filled out by the

participants who reviewed their own virtual team documents, logs, and recordings that

served as firsthand knowledge. Data analysis led to several patterns and themes including

communication, trust, and collaboration challenges for virtual leaders. Organizational

leaders can use this study’s findings to develop efficient and effective ways to engage

with virtual leaders to achieve effective project deliverables and impact change in virtual

environments in the 21st-century workplace.

The Challenges of Virtual Leadership Affecting Project Delivery in the Public Sector

Verna-Kay Smith

MBA, University of Maryland, University Colleges, 2013

MS, University of Maryland, University Colleges, 2011

BS, Kaplan University, 2006

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Management and Technology

Walden University

November 2018

ProQuest Number:

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest

Published by ProQuest LLC ( ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

13419976

2018

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my late father, Vernon Lewis Mitchell, who I

believe watches over me daily. I want to thank him for instilling determination,

dedication, and a strong work ethic into my soul. Dad was warrior; he never let anyone or

anything stand in his way. The Mitchell blood runs deep in my soul; I too have that same

determination and work ethic, so thank you Dad for always believing in me!

I also want to dedicate this dissertation to my grandparents, who taught me to lead

from the front from a young age. I was one of many grandchildren, and it was impressed

upon me early to give freely, to remember there is enough love to go around (to love

unconditionally), and to never be selfish. Early in life, it was expected that I would

become a role model. My grandmother had no time for weakness; she was about trying

and trying again. I have always been determined to succeed in life and to never quit.

Although my grandparents and my father are no longer with me physically, I

know they are watching over me, and they have encouraged me along this journey. I

realize this would never have been possible without God or them by my side. I am truly

grateful. I thank them for the influence they have in my life. I am blessed!

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank several people for their support on my journey to obtain my PhD.

First, I would like to thank God. This was not an easy journey, and it is only though

grace, faith, and God’s love that I have been able to finish and reach my goal.

To my amazing husband, Kenneth Alan Smith, who I can never thank enough,

what an amazing man to stand by me through this whole process. I want to thank you for

always believing in me. Thank you for your unconditional love and support. I love you!

To my two sons Travis Mitchell Smith and Todd Dillon Smith, you guys have seen me

go to school for years and never once gave up on me. You both always stood by me.

Thank you for always supporting me—love, your Momma!

To my Mom (Joyce Kay Mitchell), I love you and thank you for all the support

throughout this process—your daughter always. I want to thank my extended family who

never gave up on me, even though at times I may have seemed distant, missed events,

and missed spending time with relatives, just know your thoughts and prayers were

heard. Thank you to my brother, sisters-in-laws, brothers-in-laws, daughter-in-love,

nephews, nieces, aunts, uncles, cousins, extended family, and friends—I truly appreciate

all the love and support.

I want to thank my dissertation committee members: Dr. John Kitoko, Dr.

Kenneth Levitt, and Dr. Judie Forbes—each of you contribute to my success. In addition,

I want to thank Dr. Walter McCollum, the Cohort group, Dr. Brian Warrick and Toni

Williams (Editor) for all your support and positivity in this process.

Table of Contents

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study ....................................................................................1

Background of the Study ...............................................................................................2

Problem Statement .........................................................................................................3

Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................4

Research Questions ........................................................................................................5

Theoretical Foundation ..................................................................................................5

Nature of the Study ........................................................................................................7

Definitions......................................................................................................................8

Assumptions .................................................................................................................10

Scope and Delimitations ..............................................................................................11

Limitations ...................................................................................................................11

Significance of the Study .............................................................................................12

Significance to Social Change .....................................................................................14

Summary and Transition ..............................................................................................15

Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................16

Literature Search Strategy............................................................................................17

Theoretical Foundation ................................................................................................20

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................23

Literature Review.........................................................................................................31

Project Risk, Limitations, and Challenges .............................................................50

Limitations .............................................................................................................55

Communication, Trust, and Leadership Emergence ..............................................55

Conclusion of Competencies .................................................................................64

Project Delivery .....................................................................................................64

Conceptual Framework ..........................................................................................65

Theory of Constraints ..................................................................................................68

Rationale for Theoretical Choice ...........................................................................72

Relation to Current Study ......................................................................................77

Gap in the Research .....................................................................................................83

Summary and Conclusions ..........................................................................................85

Chapter 3: Research Method ..............................................................................................88

Research Design and Rationale ...................................................................................89

Role of the Researcher .................................................................................................93

Methodology ................................................................................................................94

Instrumentation ............................................................................................................98

Data Collection Procedures ..........................................................................................99

Data Analysis .............................................................................................................100

Issues of Trustworthiness ...........................................................................................103

Ethical Protection of Research Participants ...............................................................104

Summary ....................................................................................................................105

Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................107

Demographics ............................................................................................................107

iii

Data Collection ..........................................................................................................108

Issues of Trustworthiness ...........................................................................................109

Credibility ............................................................................................................109

Transferability ......................................................................................................110

Dependability .......................................................................................................110

Study Results .............................................................................................................111

Confirmability ......................................................................................................111

Summary ....................................................................................................................116

Chapter 5: Discussions, Conclusion, and Recommendations ..........................................117

Overview ....................................................................................................................117

Interpretation of the Results .......................................................................................118

Research Question 1 ............................................................................................119

Research Question 2 ............................................................................................120

Limitation ...................................................................................................................121

Recommendations ......................................................................................................121

Implications................................................................................................................122

Summary and Conclusion ..........................................................................................123

References ........................................................................................................................125

Appendix A: Questionnaire for the Virtual Team Leaders ..............................................147

Appendix B: Checklist of Items .......................................................................................148

Appendix C: Approval E-mail – Questionnaire Questions..............................................150

List of Tables

Table 1. Publication Dates of Source Material Used in the Literature Review .................20

Table 2. Data of Participants in Case Study ....................................................................113

Table 3. Meeting—Communication ................................................................................116

Table 4. Communication-During Projects .......................................................................120

List of Figures

Figure 1. Project timelines. ..............................................................................................115

Figure 2. Themes & Patterns ...........................................................................................119

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Research about virtual collaboration is vital to the field of management.

Organizational leaders who focus on project delivery as a risk indicator may achieve

clarity regarding virtual leadership challenges. Researchers should work to understand

the barriers that decrease effectiveness in project delivery (Battistella, Annarelli, &

Nonino, 2015). Virtual collaborations have become more sophisticated and require virtual

communication, trust, and leadership when establishing roles for virtual leaders

(Hampton et al., 2017; Hill & Bartol, 2016; Jarvenpaa & Leider, 1999). By gathering

evidence and gaining knowledge of the virtual leadership challenges and of the

deficiencies that may occur in project delivery, researchers can contribute to the

management field.

Organizational leaders must have virtual team leaders who can provide successful

project outcomes. Virtual collaboration challenges have implications for how

organizational leaders approach and assess situations (Hill & Bartol, 2016; Laux, Luse, &

Mennecke, 2016). The organizational mission is at risk when uneducated and ill-

equipped virtual leaders facilitate virtual teams. It is crucial for organizations to achieve

success “through well-trained leadership” (Mathieu, Neumann, Hare, & Babiak, 2014, p.

84) and through virtual team leaders who produce quality project deliverables. The

execution of change by organizational leaders continue to require identification of

limitations and the gaps that cause delays, and the prevention of delays in productivity.

Virtual collaboration and project delivery depend heavily on communication,

trust, and emergent leadership. Organizational leaders continue to learn and understand

how to motivate employees and virtual leaders toward successful project outcomes to

maintain project deliverables. This study involved evaluating the role of virtual leaders

and their challenges with communication, trust, and leadership emergence, as well as

how these competencies contribute to project deliverables. In the remainder of this

chapter, I discuss the study’s background, offer the problem statement, discuss the

purpose and nature of the study, present the research questions and the theoretical

framework on which I built the study, outline the significance of the study, provide

definitions, and outline assumptions and limitations.

Background of the Study

Communication and trust play vital roles in virtual collaboration and project

delivery. Derven (2016) indicated free-flowing communication, good judgment and trust,

and building confidence in a virtual workplace are key elements of virtual collaboration.

Lee (2013) noted that virtual leaders consistently encounter obstacles in building

communication and trust. Action plans facilitated by well-trained virtual leaders may

mitigate risk factors while producing successful project deliverables.

As organizational leaders learn to communicate within the virtual environment, it

is essential to build trust within the virtual workplace. Virtual team leaders need to build

relationships that support virtual members to accomplish projects (Derven, 2016). As a

critical component of building virtual teams, virtual leaders face a challenge of

developing trust with team members. Noncollocated team members might remain out-of-

sync with other members in the team, which can cause misunderstandings (Cramton,

2001; Schaubroeck & Yu, 2017). By remaining respectful of others and sharing concerns,

leaders can establish trust (Derven, 2016). Virtual leaders may struggle as team members

try to bond and build trust within the group. Leaders are responsible for becoming the

conduit between the organization and the virtual team (Derven, 2016). Virtual team

leaders establish their role within the group and find ways to strengthen virtual

communication and trust within the virtual team.

Virtual team leaders continue to receive a lot of scholarly attention in the 21st

century. This study involved exploring both the contextual work environment and the

motivational aspects of virtual leaders to expand the current literature. Increasing the

organizational leaders’ understanding of the underlying mechanism and motivation for

when, how, and why virtual leaders encounter challenges during collaborations will

ultimately affect the outcome of project delivery.

Problem Statement

Virtual teams that lack adequate virtual training and competencies encounter

challenges in project delivery. Despite the popularity of virtual teams in the 21st-century

workplace, managing a virtual team is complex (Berry, 2011). The 21st-century

workplace is at a higher risk for delays in productivity due to impacts from team

members’ lack of virtual competencies (Daim et al., 2012). For example, ineffective

project delivery yields an adverse impact that contributes to a 15% loss in the annual

budget of the U.S. government (Hardy-Vallee, 2012). The general problem is that the

virtual skills and competencies of leaders lag behind those of leaders in the expanding

technological business world. The specific problem is the challenges that virtual leaders

face, such as lack of knowledge, training, and resources, all of which adversely impact

project delivery. This study fills a gap in the literature regarding the challenges of virtual

communication, trust, emergent leadership, and project delivery.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative, exploratory, single case study was to explore the

challenges for virtual team leaders in the government environment that can affect project

delivery. Scott and Wildman (2015) have noted evolution in conceptions of how to

complete work and the emergence of competing ideas about the competencies and

attributes appropriate for fluid work environments. Organizational leaders, including

those in the U.S. government, are attempting to flatten hierarchies and reduce travel costs

by increasing more opportunities for telework, telecommuting, and virtual teams;

however, research on virtual teams is still in its infancy (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Bell &

Kozlowski, 2002; Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Hertel, Konradt, & Voss, 2006;

Jarvenpaa & Leider, 1999; Meister & Willyerd, 2010). This study fills a gap in the

literature through examination of virtual teams from the perspective of government

virtual team leaders in relation to their challenges with virtual communication, trust,

leadership, and project delays. Social change will occur when organizational leadership

selects virtual leaders with abilities to build virtual communication, develop trust, and

improve leadership while reducing project delays. Furthermore, organizational change in

the public sector is more responsive and efficient in government through quality services,

stewardship of tax dollars and innovative development and initiative programs.

The qualitative research method involves gathering detailed data to describe a

phenomenon. In contrast, the quantitative research method involves measuring data and

counting features to construct statistical models. A quantitative research method was not

appropriate this research study on virtual team leadership because quantitative surveys

include hypotheses for large groups of participants (Andressen, Konradt, & Neck, 2012).

Qu and Dumay (2011) noted that researchers conducting interviews or questionnaires to

answer research questions which is a qualitative approach. I determined that an

exploratory case study was better suited to answering why and how questions.

Research Questions

The main research question was as follows: How do virtual leaders in the

government environment describe the challenges of leading a virtual team, and how do

these challenges impact project delivery? The specific research subquestions for the study

were the following:

Subquestion 1: How do government virtual team leaders describe the manner in

which challenges negatively affect project delivery?

Subquestion 2: What are virtual leaders doing to overcome the challenges

associated with effective project delivery?

Theoretical Foundation

I developed this qualitative study using the lens of the theory of constraints. As

Goldratt (1990) noted, the theory of constraints applies to running and improving

organizations while addressing a system’s performance and seeking positive change.

Supporters of this theory claim that organizational leaders can focus on the limiting

factors that tend to lead to project failure. Leadership and trust are challenging factors of

virtual collaborations that affect project delivery (Daim et al., 2012; Hill & Bartol, 2016;

Iorio & Taylor, 2015; Jarvenpaa, & Leider, 1999; Lockwood, 2015). Aguinis and

Edwards (2014) also contended that management research must keep pace with

communication technology. Organizational leaders must find new ways to address the

challenges of training and developing competencies from a virtual perspective while

focusing on the key risks to project delivery.

Leaders find value and success within the virtual environment while maintaining

proficiency in project delivery. Researchers continue to study the challenges of virtual

teams and leaders in the 21st-century workplace (Hertel et al., 2005; Kayworth & Leider,

2001; Kurmm & Hertel, 2013). This exploratory case study involved using the theory of

constraints lens to understand how virtual leaders try to meet goals and objectives by

focusing on mitigating the risks of project deliverables. Specifically, the theory of

constraints provided a sound framework for my exploration of virtual collaboration,

virtual training, and project delivery.

Hu, Cui, and Demeulemeester (2015) noted the theory of constraints is an

effective tool for communicating, building teams, reducing inventory, and reducing costs.

Goldratt (1990) suggested that leaders use the theory of constraints to solve problems in

leadership alignment, project management, supply chain, and production. As a theory of

thinking processes, the theory of constraints is a framework that leaders use to develop

simple solutions to complex problems (Goldratt, 1990). The theory is particularly

beneficial for organizational leaders working to manage the limitations that prevent a

successful output. By acknowledging the limiting factors and developing simple solutions

through the theory of constraints, organizational leaders can remain competitive.

Nature of the Study

I used a qualitative, exploratory case study design for this study. A qualitative

case study approach begins with a specific criterion associated with specific groups,

individuals, topics, or events (Yin, 2014). My goal was to make a positive contribution to

the field of study by shedding light on the challenges facing virtual leaders. Specifically, I

focused on the challenges of virtual communication, building trust, and leadership

emergence. Using the theory of constraints as a lens, I was able to identify the limitations

that ultimately cause delays in project delivery.

This study involved surveying government virtual leaders to determine their

thoughts and attitudes about project delivery, their challenges with virtual teams, their

competencies, and their skills to identify the most effective avenue for successful

outcomes. Yin (2011) suggested that a case study should involve a real context. Most

research takes place in educational settings, where virtual teams are somewhat limited

and lack real-world applicability (Hertel et al., 2005, 2006; Jervenpaa & Leidner, 1999;

Zhang & Fjermastad, 2006). Researchers have revealed that 85% or more of all relevant

research on virtual teams and project delivery is not based in a real-world context but

generally takes place in university settings. In this study, I collected research data from

virtual leaders who work in government environments and analyzed perspectives,

documented data collection, and reviewed other related case studies and narratives. I

focused on virtual leadership and risk mitigation in project delivery.The population in

this study comprised employees from government-based agencies who have held virtual

team positions for at least 5 years. I chose this population because these employees had

the knowledge and skill sets that allowed open dialogue on the topics of virtual teams,

competency, training, and project delivery. An exploratory case study was a

comprehensive way to address the questions of why and how in relation to virtual

communication, trust, leadership, and project deliverables.

Definitions

I have used the following operational definitions of key terms throughout this

study:

Competency: Due to the rapid growth of virtual teams, it is necessary to

understand virtual compentecy challenges in the 21st workplace, focus on the impacts to

productivity and project deliverables. In addition, some researchers believe that, by

formularizing specific, virtual competency skills, organizational leaders can produce and

create successful virtual teams. (Krumm, S., & Hertel, G. 2013; Muethel & Hegl, 2010;

Wakefield, Leidner, & Garrison, 2008).

Diverse teams: A component of effective government virtual leaders is diversity

due to the differences in space and culture that occur in the 21st-century work

environment. Virtual teams are diverse and have both differences and similarities.

Furthermore, virtual teams are diverse, with both differences and similarities, and if

harnessed properly by the virtual team leader, the teams can become a source of

innovation (Derven, 2016).

Global virtual teams: Global virtual teams have members who transcend time,

space, and cultural differences and who work together to provide project deliverables

(Magnusson, Schuster, & Taras, 2014).

Inclusive leader: The type of leader who is essential to virtual team success and

captures the best ideas by including all participants on a team (Derven, 2016).

Leadership emergence: Development of leadership skills over time; in leaderless

groups, leaders emerge (Stader, 2009).

Social network group: Groups of individuals who network or share information

on a social website (Kuo & Thompson, 2014).

Swift trust: The form of trust that occurs in temporary organizational structures, a

group, or a team to include quick starts with initial trust (Crisp & Jarvenpaa, 2015;

Germain & McGuire, 2014).

Team performance: The multilevel process of teamwork and individual team

members completing tasks to achieve positive outcomes that meet or exceed the project

deliverable standards (Haselberger, 2016).

Virtual leader: The virtual leader develops and facilitates effectively in the virtual

workplace. Virtual leaders maintain confidence in their leadership roles and

responsibilities and they are proficient in project output. In addition, the virtual leader is

proficient in virtual ccommunication, has abilities to develop trust, demonstrates

flexibility with virtual teams, and encourages leadership emergence. The positive effects

that a virtual leader has on projects and deliverables can contribute to the competitive

global market, which may propel organizations forward in the 21st-century workplace

(Lockwood, 2015). The business world is at a critical stage for virtual team leaders, and it

is essential to adapt and become proficient in virtual mechanism effectiveness in the

virtual workplace (Fan, Chen, Wang, & Chen, 2014; Hoch & Kozlowski, 2012).

Virtual team leaders: The style of leadership in which leaders make a variety of

self-managed decisions associated with national or cultural diversity and globalization

that require a different approach (Kirkman, Shapiro, Lu, & McGurrin, 2016). In this case

study, all virtual leaders were government employees and had at least 1 year of leadership

experience in the virtual environment with 15–20 successful projects.

Virtuality: Exclusive use of technology for communication and collaboration

amongst team members (Serban et al., 2015).

Virtual reality: A virtual environment that is a computer-generated, multisensory,

and includes telepresence or full immersion (Aguinis & Edwards, 2014; Stanney & Zyda,

2002).

Assumptions

For this case study, I made several assumptions to support a successful outcome.

Virtual teams and project deliverables was the selected topic, and my goal was to

understand the impact of government virtual team leaders on project deliverable

outcomes. One assumption was that Goldratt’s (1990) theory of constraints would

provide an adequate framework for this research topic and data collection. I sent the

participants an e-mail that outlined the purpose of the study and included a list of criteria

for participation. I assumed that the individuals would read the criteria and participate in

the research only if they meet the requirements. Another assumption was that the

government employees participating in the study would understand the questionnaire and

provide honest responses.

Scope and Delimitations

The target population comprised virtual team members and leaders who were

government employees. The sample size was 11 volunteer participants. I used a

purposeful sampling technique to identify potential participants from among government

employees on LinkedIn. Sources of data for this exploratory case study included

electronic questionnaires, documents, team memos, progress reports of virtual teams, and

a personal reflective journal.

The scope of this case study was delimited to government virtual team leaders and

employees who participated in virtual team collaborations working across time, distance,

and space. Working on these teams requires team members’ ability to quickly build trust

with one another and to complete a full project deliverable through information and

communication technology.

Limitations

Case studies are a useful research method even though they have limitations. This

exploratory case study had limitations, which indicate possible weaknesses that can affect

the outcome of a study (Mitchell & Jolley, 2010). One limitation was the sample of

participants purposefully recruited from government agencies, which narrowed the scope.

Furthermore, the government employees needed to be on virtual teams that worked on

projects, which caused additional limitations. The findings from the study only reflect the

views of the virtual team leaders and members who participated. Researchers may

believe the results of this case study are too narrow to generalize to any other

organization or virtual team leader in the same situation. Although a government sample

weakens the validity of a study (Singleton & Straits, 2010), my findings may prove useful

for practical application by organizational leaders and other stakeholders. It is important

to develop simple solutions for virtual teams to follow and to adjust the flow for changes

that will increase productivity.

Significance of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative, single case study was to explore the challenges

virtual leaders in the government environment face that can affect project delivery.

Organizational leaders should recognize the direct effect of virtual teams and project

deliverables on organizations’ bottom line. Hardy-Vallee (2012) indicated that project

delivery failure is a strong indicator of the ineffectiveness of virtual leaders, and results in

a 15% annual loss to the U.S. budget. Organizational leaders must assess and mitigate the

risks of project delays resulting from ineffective virtual leaders or the risk factors will

continue to have significant effects on the annual budget.

Virtual teams and collaborations alter where, when, and how employees go about

their daily tasks and complete projects. Researchers continue to emphasize the

importance of improving technology and using traditional options such as e-mail, chat,

and discussion boards (Lin, 2010). Virtual organizations can only succeed if they learn to

adapt to the challenges of the virtual environment and understand the roles,

competencies, and challenges of virtual team leaders (Kozlowski, Grand, Baard, &

Pearce, 2015).

Organizational leaders should understanding the technological infrastructure, but

should also comprehend the challenges virtual leaders confront. Researchers generally

examine the technological infrastructure when working to understand organizational risk;

however, the ultimate risk factor is failed project delivery, which has a connection to the

annual budget. Chang, Hung, and Hsieh (2014) indicated that virtual teams develop in all

types of industries, and leaders need to acquire the skills and competencies to achieve

positive impacts. Virtual teams feel disconnected from organizations if leaders do not

interact virtually. Chrisentary and Barrett (2017) noted that virtual leaders experience

pitfalls of interpersonal communication because they lack regular face-to-face interaction.

Virtual teams must develop relationship bonds and trust (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2012;

Jarvenpaa & Leider, 1999). Berry (2011) noted that human resources policies should

include development, training, and competencies for virtual team leaders. It is time to

build successful virtual teams and develop virtual leaders who can facilitate effectively in

the virtual workplace. Leaders who remain confident in their leadership roles and

responsibilities can remain proficient in project output.

Communication, the ability to develop trust, flexibility, and leadership emergence

are competencies a virtual leader needs to develop to positively affect project delivery

and to mitigate risk in the 21st-century workplace. The business world is at a critical

stage for virtual team leaders, and it is important to adapt and become proficient in the

effectiveness of virtual mechanisms (Fan et al., 2014; and Hoch & Kozlowski, 2012).

The virtual environment is in flux, and organizational leaders need to remain adaptable

and experience virtual collaboration. Since 2006, teleworking in the government has

grown 400% (Denison et al., 2014). Organizational leaders have a responsibility to

ensure virtual leaders have the training, skills, and competencies required to make

positive strides during virtual collaborations and can effectively produce project

deliverables in this work enviroment.

The world of information and communication technologies is always changing.

Social media networks are becoming significant means for information sharing

throughout organizations (Hanna, 2012; Sethuraman, Sekar, & Sivaramakrishnan, 2014),

and as the world of media continues to advance, virtual leaders will need to grow,

develop, and learn to emerge into new media-rich environments. The execution of change

by organizational leaders is paramount, as is a focus on identifying the limitations and

gaps that are causing the delays and limiting productivity in project deliverables. It is

important to develop simple solutions for organizational leaders to follow so that they can

better adjust workflow to increase productivity.

Significance to Social Change

Organizational leaders may be able to use this study as a strategy tool and a tool

for positive social change. Specifically, they may use my findings to understand how

virtual teams perform and communicate in order to keep their organizations competitive

(see Berry, 2011). The data from this study may minimize the risk of project failure,

contribute to team building, and foster positive virtual team. Building on virtual

leadership competencies and team effectiveness assists in project delivery.

The significance and social change implication from this study is that virtual

teams and leaders can use the results to expand project delivery while leveraging a full

range of competencies for virtual team leaders. Researchers, virtal team leaders, and

organizational leaders may analyze the material and effectively provide a framework for

standard procedures, policies, and compentencies. Case studies have a wide range of

potential audiences including policy makers, professionals, researchers, organizational

leaders, and stakeholders. The results can have positive benefits on many fronts in the

management community. One of my central goals in this study was to identify limitations

and gaps that are causing delays and limiting productivity in project deliverables.

Summary and Transition

This chapter included a discussion on the research problem, purpose, and

methodology I used to study how organizational leaders can effectively impact virtual

team leaders and project deliverables. It is essential to understand the limitations and

constraints that cause delays in project deliverables, and an exploratory case study was

the appropriate methodology to examine the challenges virtual leaders face.

Organizational leaders must recognize when project deliverables are negatively impacted

by demands in the virtual workplace.

Chapter 2 includes a comprehensive review of relevant studies on virtual teams,

leadership, and project deliverables. Chapter 3 includes my rationale for selecting an

exploratory case study and using the theory of constraints while explaining data

collection, data analysis, and ethical protection for this research project. Chapter 4

includes the findings, results, and constructs built around the research questions. The

results show patterns, themes, and perspectives I gathered using the theory of constraints

as a critical lens. Finally, Chapter 5 includes my analysis and interpretation of the results,

social change implications, and possible topics for future research.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

In this chapter, I review scholarly literature on virtual teams, communication, trust,

leadership emergence, and project delivery. The literature includes multiple perspectives

on virtual leadership competencies during virtual collaborations to improve productivity

time frames for project deliverables. According to Bryman (2015), analysis of past and

current literature is crucial for a thorough study. I reviewed studies dating from 2012 to

2015 that included information regarding (a) the background of virtual teams; (b) impacts

for project deliverables; (c) challenges and disadvantages to virtual collaborations, (d)

virtual teams, communication, trust, and leadership emergence; and (e) the characteristics

of a 21st-century virtual workplace environment. The literature underscores the lack of

virtual training and competencies for virtual leaders and teams, which continues to

negatively affect project delivery times and creates challenges, obstacles, and failures in

project performance.

More research was necessary on the topic of virtual leaders and project delivery,

as the challenges continue to affect virtual teams (Hertel et al., 2005, 2006; Roybal, 2010;

Zhang & Fjermastad, 2006). The purpose of this case study was to explore virtual

leaders’ challenges in the government environment that can affect project delivery. The

general problem was that the virtual skills and competencies of leaders lag behind those

of leaders in the technological business world. The specific problem was the challenges

that virtual leaders face, such as the lack of knowledge, training, and resources, all of

which adversely affect project delivery. Identifying the limitations and gaps that are

causing delays and ultimately preventing productivity in project deliverables is important,

and my goal was to develop simple solutions organizational leaders could use to increase

productivity in the 21st-century workplace.

Literature Search Strategy

I conducted an exhaustive review of scholarly materials to gain a better

understanding of the challenges that virtual leaders encounter. Hu et al. (2015) indicated

that the theory of constraints is an effective tool for communication, team building,

inventory reduction, and cost reduction for organizations. Other researchers have shown

that lack of communication, trust, and leadership are the contributing factors of

challenges faced by virtual leaders (Daim et al., 2012; Iorio & Taylor, 2015; Jarvenpaa &

Leider, 1999; Lockwood, 2015). These challenges continue to affect virtual leaders and

project deliverables.

Because the topics of virtual leadership and project deliverables are multifaceted,

researchers are still exploring them. Researchers are taking a multilevel approach when

studying virtual teams (Charbonnier-Voirin, El Akremi, & Vandenberghe, 2010;

Maynard, Kennedy, & Sommer, 2015; Wildman et al., 2012). Virtual leaders must

recognize the challenges that are affecting virtual teams and leaders (Saafein &

Shaykhian, 2014). Leaders of government agencies have begun to make changes with the

virtual workforce. In 2006, the federal government’s virtual workforce expanded by

400% and government leaders began developing telework policies and procedures

(Denison et al., 2014). Pepper (2010) noted that no organization can remain stagnant and

stay competitive in the global environment. Leaders in the business world and the

government need to become proficient in virtual leadership (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002;

Fan et al., 2014; Hoch & Kozlowski, 2012; & Zaugg & Davies, 2013). Derven (2016)

indicated that virtual leaders are an essential source of innovation and new ideas for any

organization, which includes government agencies. Researchers must address the

challenges that affect virtual leadership and project deliverables.

This literature review includes research on virtual leadership and project delivery,

which were key concepts in this exploratory case study. My primary concern in this study

was risks to project deliverables in virtual environments due to the challenges caused by a

lack of communication, trust, and leadership emergence. In this review, I found links

between several variables identified in previous research. Specifically, I found links in

the research between the challenges virtual leaders experienced in training, competencies,

policy and procedures, virtual leadership style, and virtual leadership effectiveness.

Selecting the most suitable research method involved reviewing different research

methods and choosing the method most appropriate for the study. The gaps I identified in

the review served to justify the type of method and approach I adopted for the study.

For this exploration of the challenges that virtual leaders encounter, I reviewed

peer-reviewed journal articles, reports, standards, regulations, encyclopedias, and

government policies and procedures. The review involved searching databases related to

the fields of business, management, and psychology to gain insight on the topic. I

conducted Boolean searches of databases I accessed through the Walden University

Library including ABI/INFORM Complete, Academic Search Complete, Business

Sources Complete, Emerald Management Journals, Dissertation and Theses at Walden,

Dissertations and Theses Full Text, Google Scholar, ProQuest Central, ProQuest SAGE

Premier, Science Direct, and Thoreau. I also reviewed reports from the United Nations,

the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, and the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration.

Searching for the following terms and phrases ensured the inclusion of all relevant

topics in the review: competency, diverse teams, e-loyalty, global virtual teams, inclusive

leader, social network group, swift trust, team performance, virtual team leaders,

virtuality, challenges and disadvantages of virtual teams, communication within virtual

teams, use of technology by virtual team leaders, and swift trust within virtual teams. I

also searched the databases for literature related to the theoretical framework of the study,

the theory of constraints.

The information obtained from the literature review was critical to my analysis of

the data. I used a systematic chain of evidence and multiple resources with publication

dates between 2013 and 2017 to ensure the validity of this exploration, and I sought to

saturate the topic. However, core articles need more focus than reference articles (Machi

& McEvoy, 2012). The review involved writing summaries with a focus on basic

information and the key concepts associated with the research topics. Summaries involve

high-level information, and a literature review is an in-depth processing of that

information (Machi & McEvoy, 2012). My goal was to identify a gap in the literature.

Table 1 shows the exhaustive list of source material and publication dates, with 87% of

the sources published in the 2013–2017 time frame.

Table 1

Publication Dates of Source Material Used in the Literature Review

Text and books

Articles and

journals

Reports and

dissertations

% of

references

2013–2017 1 74 80

2006–2012 7 47 15

2005 and prior 3 18 5

Total references 16 137 100

Theoretical Foundation

Organizational leaders should focus on positive project delivery and any limiting

factors that can fail a project. Project delivery is at a higher risk of failure for virtual

teams (Daim et al., 2012). The theory of constraints, when used for communicating, team

building, reducing inventory, and reducing costs, is an essential tool in building a

foundation in management (Hu et al., 2015). The theory of constraints is a management

paradigm, and Goldratt (1990) noted organizational leaders can solve problems in

leadership alignment, project management, supply chain, and production with strategies

and tools developed from the theory of constraints. Organizational leaders and

researchers utilized the theoretical framework of constraints which leads to continusous

improvements by addressing system performance and seeking positive change.

The theory of constraints aligned with the purpose and problem of the study given

that it underscored the lack of virtual training and competencies for virtual leaders and

teams, which continues to impact project delivery times, creates challenges and obstacles,

and leads to failed project performance. Research has indicated that communication,

trust, and leadership are the leading obstacles in virtual collaboration for leaders and

teams (Daim et al., 2012; Hill, & Bartol, 2016; Iorio & Taylor, 2015; Lockwood, 2015).

Virtual team leaders must address the same challenges in core competencies to ensure

successful project deliverables.

My assumptions throughout the research process and the research questions

aligned with the theory of constraints. According to Goldratt’s (1990) theory of

constraints, research topics and data collection serve as an development of the research

process. In this research process, I assumed that individuals would participate only if they

met the requirements of the case study. I also assumed that the government employees

who participated in this study would understand the questionnaire and would provide

honest responses to each question.

Furthermore, my hope was that organizational leaders could use my findings to

learn to manage their limitations. The idea is that with knowledge comes prevention, and

with prevention comes successful project deliverables. The theory of constraints is a

thinking process, and as such, the theory assists leaders in developing simple solutions to

complex problems (Goldratt, 1990). Leaders who have the ability to understand how

virtual teams perform, trust, and communicate may be able to remain competitive (Berry,

2011). By acknowledging the limiting factors and developing simple solutions, leaders

can use the theory of constraints to focus on successful project deliverables in virtual

collaborations.

Leaders might be able to use the findings from this study to focus on the root

cause of project delivery delays. Accordingly, the results may lead to improvements in

the skills, competencies, and developments of virtual team collaborations and leadership

training. By building virtual leadership competencies and virtual team effectiveness,

organizational leaders can improve project delivery. With the help of human resources,

leaders may develop frameworks to implement new training tools and social change

strategies to ensure the positive effects of virtual leadership skills on project deliverables

are constructive.

A qualitative approach, and more specifically a human behavior research design,

framed this investigation to answer why and how questions regarding stakeholder

investments. Goldratt (1990) noted that leaders using the theory of constraints might

solve problems in leadership alignment, project management, supply chain, and

production. The theory of constraints is a management approach leaders use to identify

limitations to successful productivity, and as such, this theory is viable for producing an

organization’s project deliverables.

Rationale of choice. Six Sigma, lean thinking, and theory of constraints are all

solid methodology approaches in the management field. Each one provides concepts,

tools, strategies, and techniques to improve performance in the workplace. Nave (2002)

indicated that knowing and understanding all methods or theories is difficult. It was

therefore better to gain an understanding of how and why the theory of constraints was

the right choice for this research study. The focus of Six Sigma is generally based as part

of a customer service approach. In the 1970s, leaders at Motorola developed Six Sigma as

a framework to address poor product quality and focus on customer requirements

(Sunder, 2016). Since the 1970s, some organizational leaders have developed hybrids of

this methodology in hopes of progressing at faster rates with improvements and quality.

The hybrid models of lean Six Sigma are becoming more attractive to leaders in

manufacturing and service industries around the world (Sunder, 2016). The focus of Six

Sigma is on frameworks for product development and process improvement.

Lean thinking is an operational tool that leaders in the automobile industry used to

remove waste from organizations. The lean approach started in the automobile industry

and then branched into banking, mining, public service, and health care (Thangarajoo &

Smith, 2015). Toyota had great success with the lean thinking approach and became

competitive with quality products and a continuous production flow (Thangarajoo &

Smith, 2015). The focus of lean thinking is production flow (Nave, 2002) and creating

high-quality products at lower prices with a strategy of receiving the products in a shorter

time frame; the operational framework is a leaner approach to a high-performing

production flow. Leaders use the theory of constraints to address system improvements

within an organization. An organizational leader who seeks positive change may

implement strategies and tools that a theory of constraint model produces. The strength of

the weakest link limits performance (Nave, 2002; Tulasi & Rao, 2012). The focus of the

theory of constraints is on the process that slows the speed and throughput that ultimately

causes delays in the performance process (p. 75). In the case of virtual team leaders and

the risk to project deliverables, organizational leadership must seek the answers and

implement strategies and tools to address the weakest link.

Conceptual Framework

Virtual teams remain fluid in the 21st-century workplace. The theory of

constraints is a process for continual improvement and is a valuable tool in the case of

rapidly changing technology (Rand, 2000). Virtual teams and virtual collaborations alter

where, when, and how employees perform their daily tasks and complete projects.

Researchers continue to emphasize improving technology and using traditional options

such as e-mail, chat, and discussion boards (Hertel et al., 2005; Lin, 2010). Project

delivery has a higher risk of failure in virtual teams (Daim et al., 2012) and contributes to

a 15% loss in the annual budget of the United States (Hardy-Vallee, 2012). Virtual

organizations can only succeed if organizational leaders learn to adapt to the challenges

of the virtual environment and understand the roles and competencies that virtual team

leaders require (Kozlowski et al., 2015).

Organizational leadership must gain knowledge and understanding of the

technology and infrastructure of the organization. Furthermore, the knowledge and

understanding of virtual leaders’ capabilities and competencies should receive the same

amount of attention. The theory of constraints may be an answer for organizational

leaders seeking to complete projects in a timely manner.

The concepts of miscommunication, development of trust, leadership emergence,

and productivity of project deliverables came to light through patterns and themes in the

research. The landscape of virtuality is continually and rapidly changing and remaining in

the status quo is a disadvantage for 21st-century organizations (Pepper, 2010). Virtual

changes are obstacles that cause breakdowns in the change process. It is important for

virtual teams to face challenges such as communication, trust, and leadership emergence

with knowledge and a framework to mitigate delays in project delivery.

Leaders in the 21st century struggle with the challenges of a dynamic and

radically changing virtual workplace environment. Virtual collaboration and

communications, trust, and leadership emergence are all critical topics in this case study.

In addition, virtual leaders in a virtual environment must understand that virtual teams are

a complex and fluid component in the 21st-century workplace. Researchers continue to

use multilevel frameworks and models as they strive to understand the dynamic

differences between traditional teams and virtual teams. Knowledge sharing and team

learning should lead to a clear understanding of the concepts of communication, trust,

and leadership emergence within virtual teams.

Communication. A lack of knowledge involving virtual communication, which

in turn delays the growth of trust during collaborations, continues to exist as the Internet

continues to change the landscape of the virtual workplace environment. It is essential to

recognize and understand miscommunication and miscues during virtual collaborations.

Organizational leaders must recognize the virtual challenges that are affecting virtual

teams and leaders (Saafein & Shaykhian, 2014). The effects that occur through

miscommunication during virtual collaborations incur risk to project deliverables, and

using the correct communication tools can assist with communication breakdowns in

virtual collaborations (Zaugg & Davies, 2013). Well-trained virtual leaders who are

cognizant of not only their role but also their weaknesses will relate to individuals during

virtual collaboration and move toward positive outcomes for project delivery.

Researchers have indicated that virtual teams develop behavioral patterns. Virtual

team members learn from mistakes and redirect communication when possible (Chang,

Chuang, & Chao, 2011; Ratcheva & Vyakarnam, 2001). Breakdowns in communication

cause chaos for virtual team members, and communication and coordination tools assist

team members with communication and shared coordination of activities (Olson &

Olson, 2014; Zaugg & Davies, 2013). These patterns trust, and leadership develop over

time through actions and communications in interpersonal and interorganizational

relations.

All individuals want to feel secure with leadership in a virtual environment.

Computer-mediated communication systems do not have to be sophisticated, but

information repositories for archiving communication are essential (Berry, 2011; Olson

& Olson, 2014). As the virtual workplace continues to change and evolve into a more

dynamic virtual environment, leaders are beginning to understand the need for better

infrastructure, communication tools, and trust development.

Trust. Leaders in the virtual workplace find it more challenging to establish trust

without the confidence of team members. Virtual team accountability is complex because

the opportunities to relate face-to-face are fewer (DePaoli & Ropo, 2015). Chrisentary

and Barrett (2015) indicated virtual leaders build on trust in virtual teams to increase tacit

knowledge. Teams that are not collocated may feel out-of-sync with other members of

the team, which can cause misunderstandings, miscommunication, and a lack of trust

among team members (Cramton, 2001; Schaubroeck & Yu, 2017). Virtual leaders may

struggle as the members try to bond and build trust within the group. Leadership style is a

focal point for researchers.

Developing trust in virtual teams becomes an issue, as leaders execute virtual

teams at a fast pace. Meyerson, Weick, and Kramer (1996) developed a phrase to

describe the quick development and short-term trust relationship of virtual teams.

Traditional trust development may not work within the virtual community because some

relational influences are weak within virtual teams (Berry, 2011). Virtual team leaders

delegate to team members, make decisions, and facilitate virtual collaborations that

happen randomly and rapidly throughout the workday. In the 21st-century workplace,

this fast progression requires highly skilled virtual leaders who can understand and

remain proficient within the virtual workplace environment. Researchers continue to seek

avenues best suited to lead virtual teams (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Muethel & Hegl,

2010; Wakefield et al., 2008). Haselberger (2016) suggested using a multilevel process of

teamwork and individual team members to complete project tasks, mitigate project

delays, and exceed project deliverable standards. It is essential to build communication

and trust within the virtual workplace. Some organizational leaders have used various

leaders and facilitators to form virtual teams and to focus on individuals who spend time

in virtual teams to gain a sense of trust and connection so team members can emerge in

leadership roles. Lockwood (2015) contended that virtual leaders require some form of

virtual leadership training to become successful 21st-century leaders. The positive effect

of leaders in a virtual collaboration will develop with training and immersion.

Leadership emergence. Proactive leaders address complex topics, ensure the

support of team efforts, follow the organizational mission, and manage conflicts. Virtual

team leaders exist throughout organizations as more virtual teams take on projects.

Leadership is a vital part of virtual team development (Chrisentary & Barrett, 2017). It

may be better to have some work experience with technology and network interaction,

which will influence and develop positive impacts within virtual teams (Iorio & Taylor,

2014). Additionally, virtual team members who have experience with technology and

network interaction can establish a leadership role within a group (Iorio & Taylor, 2014,

p. 404). Performance in virtual teams can increase through effective leadership.

Leadership positions in organizations are vast and vary in detail. Myatt (2015)

suggested that gaining a leadership position is easier than maintaining it is, and the

credibility of a leader is crucial. The concept of leadership must develop in a work

environment over time and space. Daim et al. (2012) noted progressive leaders emerge

within virtual collaborations through developing communication skills and becoming

facilitators within the virtual community. Through the positive engagement of leaders,

individuals build a sense of trust in virtual teams (Iorio & Taylor, 2014; Jarvenpaa &

Leider, 1999). However, DePaoli and Ropo (2015) contended that some socializing and

meeting face-to-face is necessary to build trust in virtual teams. Not all researchers agree

about how leaders should develop trust or establish bonds within virtual teams

(Charbonnier-Voirin et al., 2010). Many teams come with a unique set of dichotomies

from diverse cultures, face language barriers, and experience virtual miscues that virtual

leaders must overcome, as it requires a specialized skill set to face such challenges in a

productive and positive manner.

Comprehending some of the challenges that virtual teams encounter may mitigate

risks and lead to a more productive flow of projects. Iorio and Taylor (2014) reported

virtual teamwork is important when establishing virtual leadership emergence. Leaders

must engage with individuals to develop a sense of trust. The challenges facing virtual

teams indicate that a need exists for the physical presence of a leader (DePaoli & Ropo,

2015). Virtual teams are becoming a fast-growing topic that requires more information.

Virtual leaders must create a framework with common shared goals to develop trust,

build communication, and establish a commitment of resolving differences, removing

obstacles, and creating accountability among team members. For decades, forming teams

at organizations varied depending on the requirements, but the most common reasons to

build a team are to enhance productivity; to increase flexibility and the speed of decision

making; and to establish workforce diversity, quality, and customer satisfaction (Gibson,

Ivancevich, Donnelly, & Konopaske, 2009; Hollenbeck, Meyer, & Ilgen, 2007; Larson &

LaFasto, 1989). Albanese (1994) noted the true reason to develop a team is to improve

project results.

It is essential for leadership to recognize and understand the elements of virtuality

because leaders of 21st-century organizations face various challenges that negatively

affect productivity (Saafein & Shaykhian, 2014), especially project deliverables. Leaders

are not grasping the requirements essential to developing productive virtual leaders who

can benefit not only the virtual team but also the whole organization or government

agency. Leaders are unable to comprehend their role in the virtual environment. Chang et

al. (2014) indicated that virtual teams develop in all types of industries, and

organizational leaders are responsible for acquiring the skills and abilities needed to

affect virtual collaborations and teams positively. Since 1996, various researchers have

studied swift trust and its attributes in virtual teams (Crisp, C. B., & Jarvenpaa, S. L.,

2015). Research results indicate that virtual teams have difficulty developing trusting

relationships (Berry, 2011). The phase swift trust became significant among virtual teams

that expedited trust development in the virtual community. However, Wildman et al.

(2015) contended that the phenomenon of swift trust as defined does not envelop all

temporary teams such as virtual teams. Some form of trust is necessary to facilitate a

virtual collaborative setting in a positive and productive manner. Zakaria and Yusof

(2015) noted virtual teams continue to struggle with swift trust due to culture differences,

short deadlines, and different time zones. Trust plays a vital role in developing virtual

team, virtual collaboration, and project delivery. Virtual teams readily use swift trust,

which can positively affect team performance.

Organizations struggle to match the pace of technology. As more virtual leaders

are in demand and the number of virtual teams is increasing, organizational leaders may

make virtual leadership training a requirement (Lockwood, 2015). E-loyalty for leaders

became a new phrase in the virtual world as individuals established forms of swift trust

(Crisp, & Jarvenpaa, 2015; Yao, Tsai, & Fang, 2015). The speed at which everything

changes in virtuality may be almost overwhelming, and organizational leaders need to

obtain additional training and gain new competencies from a virtual perspective to

address project delivery delays while researchers continue to seek the right balance.

Organizational leaders cannot afford the high risk that virtual teams cause due to

communication breakdown, trust issues, and challenges with virtual leadership (Daim et

al., 2012). Researchers must continue to investigate virtual teams and leaders to find the

gaps in the literature to reveal the challenges and to educate organizational leaders and

virtual team leads at various organizations.

Literature Review

Serban et al. (2015) contended comfort with technology has no relationship to

leadership emergence in a virtual team. It is essential for leadership of virtual teams to

remain flexible and to expect consistent growth and development. The literature review

illuminated the lack of understanding by researchers, organizational leaders, and virtual

team leaders at various organizations. Virtual teams are indispensable, yet a critical gap

in the literature on effective leadership to prevent risk of productivity in organizations

required additional scholarly research, as the work environment continues to change

radically (Daim et al., 2012). Leaders must develop the skills and abilities needed to

make positive strides in the virtual workplace. Since the beginning of virtual teams,

various researchers have studied the different dynamics of teams and leadership. Aguinis

and Edwards (2014) contended that management research must keep pace with

communication technology, whereas Yao et al. (2015) noted virtual communities should

assist in providing theoretical platforms for individuals to share information and

knowledge, as this would be a best practice approach for the virtual workplace.

Additionally, researchers continue to seek avenues that best suit the leadership style and

competency skill set for leading virtual teams (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Muethel & Hegl,

2010; Wakefield et al., 2008). The type of leader that is essential to a virtual team’s

success and that captures the best ideas during collaborations includes all participants on

the team (Derven, 2016). Based on the amount lost in the annual budget, a major

responsibility of organizational leadership is to mitigate project delays. The driving

concept is to develop core competencies for virtual team leaders because with the correct

competencies, the challenges and obstacles faced during a virtual collaboration will

diminish. Additionally, virtual leaders will be able to affect project deliverables

positively.

Additionally, the literature review establishes relevance and includes an

explanation regarding why and how the data aligns to the management and leadership

field for future research. Challenges specific to virtual leaders are virtual communication,

trust, and leadership emergence among virtual teams. In addition, project delivery

considered an at-risk element for virtual teams due to the breakdown of communication

and a pending development in the 21st century work environment (Daim et al., 2012).

According to Berry (2011), virtual teams have difficulty developing trusting

relationships. Iorio and Taylor (2015) indicated that leadership emergence is vital in

virtual teams and differs based on personal experiences with technology. It is up to the

leadership in a virtual team to develop and discover the proper framework requirements

to succeed in the 21st-century workplace. Researchers are not in agreement on the basic

leadership definition or on how to assist with the forward progression of a virtual leader.

Virtual teams need some knowledge and understanding of technology and

infrastructure. In the 21st century, the new term virtuality refers to the exclusive use of

technology for communication and collaboration (Serban et al., 2015). Global virtual

teams are teams with members who transcend time, space, and cultural differences and

who work together for project deliverables (Magnusson et al., 2014). According to Kuo

and Thompson (2014), virtual teams may work as groups who network or share

information on social websites and are known to social network. When virtual teams

collaborate, it is essential to establish ways to build trust, and it is up to virtual leaders to

understand and guide their team members.

The concepts of communication, development of trust, leadership emergence, and

the productivity of project deliverables for virtual team leaders developed through

communication, collaboration, trust and trained facilitators. The landscape of virtuality is

continually and rapidly changing, and remaining status quo is a disadvantage for any

21st-century organization (Pepper, 2010). Virtual changes are obstacles to leadership and

organizations that create breakdowns in communication for virtual teams. Researchers

have studied the progression of leaders and skills for years, and virtual leadership is an

innovation in the 21st-century workplace (Anjanee, Neera, & Shoma, 2010; Bass, 1990;

Katz 2009; Krumm, & Hertel, 2013; Pepper 2010). The challenges faced by virtual teams

such as communication, trust, and leadership emergence may impede project delivery and

successful outcomes.

Leaders may struggle with the challenges of a dynamic and radically changing virtual

workplace environment. Researchers are using a multilevel framework approach when

studying virtual teams (Charbonnier-Voirin et al., 2010; Maynard et al., 2015; Wildman

et al., 2012). Gilson, Maynard, Young, Vartianinen, and Hakonen (2015) studied virtual

teams between 2005 and 2015 and the empirical work led to 10 main themes for future

research. The number of virtual teams is increasing, and a need exists for attention toward

future research. Understanding virtual teams is a complex and fluid component of the

21st-century workplace. Multilevel frameworks and models continue to assist researchers

as they strive to understand the dynamic differences between traditional teams and virtual

teams. Through knowledge sharing and team learning, the concepts of communication,

trust, and leadership emergence evolve within virtual teams.

Virtual leaders, in a virtual environment, who can remain aware and positive and who

can communicate effectively can build trust within their virtual teams. Sankowska and

Söderlund (2015) indicated trust is one key component to a successful virtual team. Earlier

researchers did not make trust a key component of success, but in the 21st century,

researchers have deemed this as a vital issue of artificial and experiential value. By gaining

knowledge, interpersonal skills, relational links, and abilities specific to a virtual leader’s

need to be proficient, organizations can remain competitive in the 21st-century workplace

(Crosby & Zlevor, 2010; Deal, 2007; Kahai et al. 2007; Kuruppuarachchi, 2009; Ropo &

Saur, 2008; Yukl, 2006). By understanding the constraints and limitations of a virtual

leader and the critical components necessary to succeed on deliverables, virtual teams

with a properly trained virtual leader can succeed in the 21st-century workplace (Crosby

& Zlevor, 2010; Deal, 2007; Kahai et al., 2007). Therefore, the purpose of this

exploratory case study was to examine the challenges virtual leaders face in the

government environment and the effect on project deliveries that these challenges make.

Communication. Soft skills, such as communication, are beneficial to virtual

team leaders and a competency required by virtual leaders. Zofi (2012) indicated a loss of

basic communication cues in the virtual environment has occurred and has diminished

communication cues, which causes leaders to lack awareness of their virtual teams. The

challenge of virtual communication continues for leaders, which in turn delays the

growth of trust during collaborations as the Internet continues to change the landscape of

the virtual workplace environment (Osman, 2014). As late as 2012, leaders in many

federal agencies failed to integrate policy, standard operating procedures, and operation

plans for the virtual workplace (Fuerth & Faber, 2012; Hines, 2012). An organization’s

mission is at risk when uneducated and ill-equipped virtual leaders facilitate virtual

teams.

A true limitation occurs when a virtual leader does not grasp the essential

requirements to develop a project deliverable. It is essential for organizational leaders to

recognize and understand the elements of virtuality because 21st-century organizations

are facing various challenges that affect successful productivity (Saafein & Shaykhian,

2014), including project deliverables. Osman (2014) noted that virtual leaders learn to

communicate through direct language that allows for more concise and a clearer

understanding for virtual team members. Zofi (2012) reported virtual communication is

about group discussions, shared documentations, shared calendars, consistency with team

e-mail, giving virtual members a chance to communicate openly, and shared, open

information for all members. By using direct, open, and consistent communication,

virtual leaders are able to convey time frames, deadlines, and responsibilities for

everyone on the team. Through virtual communication, a virtual leader is able to lead

using virtual methods and to ensure an understanding of tasks for a successful project

outcome.

Virtual collaborations continue to increase as the Internet continues to change the

landscape of the virtual workplace environment, and virtual communication will continue

to be a competency for virtual leaders. Lee (2013) indicated that employees are

collocated and that they operate less frequently in brick-and-mortar environments. Virtual

team members may push back project delivery timelines and responsibilities in a virtual

environment if they lack of understanding and if they have less leadership interaction

(Zofi, 2012). The 21st-century workplace continues to operate through virtual

communication, and leaders continue to face virtual communication challenges.

Organizational leaders who do not grasp the essential requirements to develop virtual

communication and truly benefit from well-developed virtual leaders, including

government virtual leadership, disregard an asset to the organizational team.

The Internet continuously changes, and many organizations fall prey to remaining

status quo and becoming ill-prepared in the virtual workplace. It is essential for leaders to

recognize and understand the elements required to develop virtual leaders because the

21st-century organizations face various challenges that affect productivity (Saafein &

Shaykhian, 2014). Organizational leaders must adapt to the 21st-century workplace and

lead not only through traditional concepts but also virtually with new approaches in the

virtual environment. Lee (2013) suggested that through developing virtual

communication, knowledge, skills, and abilities leaders can build trusted teams.

Additionally, leaders must comprehend their role in the virtual environment. Analysts for

the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) estimated that nearly half of all

U.S. organizations use virtual teams on a daily basis (Germain & McGuire, 2014, p. 357).

Chang et al. (2014) indicated that virtual teams develop in all types of industry and noted

organizational leaders must acquire the skills and abilities to positively affect virtual

collaborations and teams. Empirical studies on leadership, virtual teams, and virtual

leaders in relation to shared emergent factors of trust can be found as researchers seek

ways to assist organizations and leaders in the leadership and organizational field; it is

critical for businesses to remain competitive in the rapidly changing technological world

(Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Kabai et al; 2004; Symons & Stenzel, 2007; Zaugg & Davies,

2013). However, gaps remain in the literature, as in-depth research findings are lacking,

and the studies are not always consistent; it seems virtual leadership is in its infancy

stage.

Gibson and Gibbs (2006) conducted an exploratory study on the effects of

geographic dispersion through 177 interviews and with 14 virtual teams and found that

virtual teams with excellent collaboration skills used knowledge sharing and safe

communication environments to build trust to communicate effectively. High standards

of training and competencies are necessary to assist virtual leaders and have already

occurred in the virtual workplace. Leaders in each organization and government agency

must develop virtual leaders and teams to remain innovative and to depend on virtual

trust and leadership emergent skills, as the technology will continue to change.

Crum (2000) conducted a study on leadership with 308 senior executive service

members in the U.S. Navy. The government exploratory study included innovations for

leadership development with technology and noted changes in organizational

environments, attitudes, and behaviors would require substantially more exploration.

Various researchers have studied virtual teams in a variety of settings: Ahuja’s (2010)

mixed method study with software organization leaders to study performance,

Lockwood’s (2015) case study with virtual teams and managers to study communication

issues, and various studies conducted in university settings for the convenience of the

setting (Iorio & Taylor, 2015; Kuo & Thompson, 2014; Magnusson et al., 2014; Minas,

Potter, Dennis, Bartelt, & Bae, 2014; Myatt, 2015; Olsen & Olsen, 2014; Purvanova,

2014; Saafein & Shaykhian 2014). Not all studies produce positive outcomes, and virtual

team leadership is still in the infancy stage, as technology continues to outpace

competency skills and abilities; as well as policies, standard operating procedures, and

operation plans.

The virtual workplace continues to change and evolve into a more dynamic virtual

environment, and organizational leaders are beginning to understand the need for better

infrastructure, communication tools, and trust development. Using the correct

communication tools can minimize communication breakdowns in virtual collaborations

(Hill, & Bartol, 2016; Zaugg & Davies, 2013). Virtual team members should learn from

their mistakes and redirect communication when possible (Chang et al., 2011; Ratcheva

& Vyakarnam, 2001). Breakdowns in communication cause chaos for virtual team

members. Communication and coordination tools assist team members with

communication and shared coordination of activities (Olson & Olson, 2014; Zaugg &

Davies, 2013). The development of virtual communication competencies includes an

awareness of communication networks, both formal and informal (Gilley 2006; Stevens

& Campion 1999). Virtual team leaders can become positive communicators in the

virtual environment and make positive impacts in project delivery if they are well-trained

and cognizant of their role to relate to individuals during virtual collaborations.

Identifying the limitations and gaps that are causing delays and preventing the success of

productivity in project deliverables is essential to develop simple solutions that will

increase productivity.

Trust. Leaders in the virtual workplace find it challenging to establish trust

without the confidence of team members. Virtual team accountability is complex because

there are fewer opportunities to relate face-to-face (DePaoli & Ropo, 2015). According to

Cramton (2001), teams that are not collocated may feel out-of-sync and may lack

awareness of other members of the team, which in turn causes misunderstandings,

miscommunication, and a lack of trust among team members. Virtual leaders may

struggle as the members try to bond and build trust within the group. Virtual team leaders

must establish their role within the group and find a way to build trust within the virtual

team.

The delegation of authority, which is a normal approach to assigning tasks in

government agencies, may become a crucial component as virtual team leaders lead

virtual teams that are teleworkers in the government on a daily basis. However, the

concepts of trust and developing trust will still be an important component of the success

of those virtual teams. Zakaria and Yusof (2015) noted virtual teams continue to struggle

with swift trust due to cultural differences, short deadlines, and different time zones.

Traditional trust development may not work within the virtual community because some

relational influences are weak within virtual teams (Berry 2011). Virtual team leaders are

delegating to team members, making decisions, and facilitating virtual collaborations that

happen randomly and rapidly throughout the workday.

In the 21st-century workplace, the fast progression virtual team develop requires

highly skilled virtual leaders who can understand, and remain proficient within, the

virtual workplace environment. Researchers continue to seek avenues best suited to

leading a virtual team (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Muethel & Hegl, 2010; Wakefield et al.,

2008). The traditional leader-centric approach focuses on team leader abilities, and

transformational leadership centers on the emergence of adaptive behaviors

(Charbonnier-Viorin et al., 2010; DePaoli & Ropo, 2015). Researchers are choosing from

an array of concepts and theories to gauge the best approach to assist leaders who are

working with virtual teams.

Trust plays a vital role in the development of virtual teams, virtual collaboration,

and project deliveries. Virtual teams readily use swift trust, which can positively affect

team performance. Haselberger (2016) indicated that multilevel processes of teamwork

and individual team members create complex project tasks to mitigate project delays and

exceed the project deliverable standards. It is essential to build communication and trust

within the virtual workplace. Additionally, some organizational leaders use various

leadership skills and facilitators to form virtual teams, and they focus on individuals who

spend time in virtual teams and who gain a sense of trust and a connection, so team

members can emerge into leadership roles. Lockwood (2015) noted that virtual leaders

require some form of virtual leadership training to become truly successful as a 21st-

century leader. The positive impact of leaders in a virtual collaboration will develop with

training and immersion.

It is human nature to want to feel secure with leadership, even in, if not more so

in, a virtual environment. Zofi (2012) indicated trust is a key component for the success

of a virtual team. Computer-mediated communication systems do not have to be

sophisticated, although information repositories for archiving communication are

essential (Berry, 2011; Olson & Olson, 2014). Trust in data is important, as is trust in

virtual leaders. The key role of a virtual leader is to build trust in leadership despite

challenges (Zofi, 2012). Trust plays a vital role for many virtual teams and leaders trying

to be productive in the 21st century workplace.

As the virtual workplace continues to change and evolve into a more dynamic

virtual environment, leaders are beginning to understand the need for better

infrastructure, communication tools, and trust development. Virtual teams seem to value

trust more than do traditional face-to-face teams (Chang, Hun, & Hsieh, 2015). Zofi

(2012) noted that leadership in the 21st century is less about control and more about

trusting the delegation of authority with the team members, which is a crucial component

for virtual team leaders to establish their role within the group and find a way to build

trust among the virtual team members.

Leaders in the virtual workplace find it challenging to establish trust without the

confidence of team members. Pellerin (2009) reported that team building is an important

component in the development of effective teams and requires performance

improvement, self-development, positive communication, and the ability to work closely

together to solve problems. Virtual team accountability is complex because there are

fewer opportunities to relate face-to-face (DePaoli & Ropo, 2015). Zofi (2014, p. 103)

explained virtual trust never develops in a vacuum, and a virtual team must be able to

communicate openly and often to develop trust. Well-trained and educated virtual leaders

will be able to address these virtual trust-building challenges and complex issues.

Virtual leaders face virtual challenges. Virtual leaders must establish bonds with

virtual team members and build trust among the group, especially in the early stages of

team building. Cramton (2001) indicated that a virtual team is not collocated, so team

members may feel out-of-sync, which can cause the team to have misunderstandings, to

miscommunicate, and to face specific challenges during the trust-building phase. Virtual

leaders must establish their virtual team and build the bonds of a well-established team

(Ardichvili, Natt och Dag, & Manderscheid, 2016). However, virtual leaders who fail to

maintain connections to their virtual team can lack clarity, which can lead to

miscommunication and a sense of a dishonesty among the team members (Zofi, 2012).

Virtual leaders are unique, and it is important to understand and address the complex

issues they face to have a successful virtual team.

Virtual leadership challenges that ultimately affect productivity were a focus in

this case study. The development of trust within virtual teams may become an issue, as

leaders execute virtual teams at a fast pace (Zofi, 2012). Sankowka and Söderlund (2015)

indicated that trust facilitates essential aspects of exchanges for knowledge sharing; in

addition, because virtual teams communicate and build trust remotely, it is vital for

individuals shared knowledge and bridge gaps of trust. Derven (2016) noted that in

virtual teams, trust promotes values and contributes to a core of inclusive leadership for

virtual leaders. In addition, clarifying virtual leadership competencies, purpose, and how

the leader and team fit into the organization achieves the goals and objectives of an

organization (Derven, 2016) and is a significant part of building virtual teams and

leadership within an organization because it means expediting communication, trust, and

leadership development in the virtual community and workplace. Virtual leaders maintain

confidence in their leadership roles and responsibilities, which creates a proficiency in a

project output. In addition, virtual leaders must be proficient in virtual communication

and have the ability to develop trust, flexibility with virtual teams, and leadership

emergence. Lockwood (2015) suggested that the positive effects that a virtual leader has

on projects and deliverables can contribute to the competitive global market and propel

organizations forward. Virtual leaders are an essential part of the 21st-century workplace

and should have the skills and competencies to create successful project deliverables.

Some relational influences are weak within virtual teams (Berry 2011). Any

complex issue that leaders to not research can create discourse, so leaders must create and

establish positive change through the development of well-researched new ideas or

concepts. Wildman et al. (2012) contended that the phenomenon of swift trust does not

envelop all temporary teams such as virtual teams. Zakaria and Yusof (2015) noted

virtual teams continue to struggle with swift trust due to cultural difference, short

deadlines, and different time zones. In virtual trust or in swift trust, it may become

essential for virtual team leaders to delegate to team members, make decisions, and

facilitate in the fast-paced virtual environment at random times throughout the workday,

and these actions require trust.

Regardless of a virtual team’s situation, some form of trust is necessary to have a

positive and productive collaborative setting, and specialized skill sets for virtual leaders

become a requirement for success. Researchers have explored swift trust since 1996.

Additionally, researchers have discussed critical effects on virtual teams due to the

phenomenon of swift trust (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2012; Wildman et al., 2012). Berry

(2011) noted human resource policies include development, training, and a focus on

virtual leadership competencies. The leaders in some organizations and government

agencies are making the choice to ignore the fact that virtual competencies are a necessity

and that the ability to lead in the virtual environment with successful project delivery will

take more than the status quo mentality. The gaps in 21st-century leadership must focus

on the benefits of understanding communication, trust, and virtual team leadership to

ensure a successful impact in the management field.

Leadership emergence. Virtual communication and the development of trust are

vital components to the success of any virtual team. Leadership emerges through

leadership skills and over time, and leaders will emerge in leaderless groups (Stader,

2009). In addition, leadership emergence is also an essential element for virtual teams. In

the 21st-century workplace, the fast progression of virtual teams leads to a requirement

for highly skilled virtual leaders who can understand the culture and remain proficient

within the virtual workplace environment based on the element of leadership emergence

(Lee, 2013). Petrie (2010) determined that due to the pace of changes in the 21st-century

work environment, leaders face complex challenges. Delegation of authority, which is a

normal approach to delegating tasks in government agencies and virtual teams, may

become crucial as virtual leaders develop virtual communication and trust for

government teleworkers.

Leadership emergence, which is a core competency for virtual team leaders, is

relevant in training, and education is vital for developing virtual team leaders who can

overcome challenges and obstacles during collaboration through the effective use of

communication and trust. Leonard (2011) noted that researchers consistently research the

topic of virtual leaders but both practical and theoretical challenges remain, and few

researchers have conducted studies with actual virtual teams; rather, they use university

students due to convenience and a lack of funding (Kayworth & Leidner, 2002;

Morgeson, Scott, & Karam, 2010). Organizational leaders must comprehend their role in

the virtual environment. Stogdill (1974) sought to redefine leadership, but his research

was only conclusive regarding the fact that leadership is more complex than a single

construct. Additionally, Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) suggested leadership contains

various traits, and some can be learned. In the 21st century, countless definitions for

leadership exist, and no one definition truly captures leadership fully. Furthermore, due to

the rapid growth of virtual teams, it is necessary to understand virtual compentecy

challenges in the 21st workplace, focus on the impacts to productivity and project

deliverables. Conant (2017) indicated that teams must contain specific areas of

competence and remain focused on the requirements for achieving successful teams.

Empirical research conducted since 2012 has indicated some forward progression

regarding virtual leadership emergence, and even without a concise definition,

researchers point to a continuation of resistance to change. Researchers have indicated

the competencies of communication and trust, and the challenges of leadership in virtual

teams, are increasing. A lack of communication in the virtual workplace may cause

breakdowns in virtual teams and create delays in project delivery. Virtual leaders must

become positive communicators in the virtual environment and make positive impacts on

project delivery. In the 21st century, researchers continue to study virtual teams’

behavioral patterns, and virtual team members can learn from communication mistakes

by redirecting communication when possible (Chang et al., 2011). It is important for

virtual leaders to emerge within virtual collaborations to lead through the developmental

challenges of communication and become facilitators within the virtual community.

Researchers in 21st-century studies have analyzed and gauged the best approaches

to assist virtual leaders who must build trusting virtual teams. Researchers continue to

find ways to engage with virtual team members and understand what constitutes the

process of building and maintaining a sense of trust with virtual teams in the virtual

workplace (Daim et al., 2012; Iorio & Taylor, 2014). Virtual leaders work within social

processes that affect information processing and that affect the ability to lead virtual

teams in remote areas (Schmidt, 2014). Zofi (2012) noted the need for group discussions,

shared documentation, shared calendars, consistency with team e-mails to give virtual

members a chance to communicate openly and to develop trust for virtual leaders. Virtual

leaders must use communication, trust, and leadership emergence to make a positive

effect on projects.

Knowing the concepts of virtual leadership promotes a successful virtual

environment with cohesive collaboration, which is essential for the success of virtuality.

It is vital for leaders of successful 21st-century organizations to invest in well-trained,

well-educated virtual leaders who can communicate virtually, build trust, and be flexible

regarding the concept of leadership emergence. The focus of the traditional leader-centric

approach is on team leaders’ abilities, and transformational leadership centers on the

emergence of adaptive behaviors (Charbonnier-Viorin et al., 2010; DePaoli & Ropo,

2015). Researchers continue to seek various avenues to lead virtual teams most

effectively (Muethel & Hegl, 2010; Wakefield et al., 2008). Zofi (2012) noted that

missed expectations of virtual teams cause conflicts in organizations and the

organizational mission, which may lead to project delays. Virtual leaders play a vital role

in the development of organizations.

Some organizational leaders consider random leaders and facilitators within the

organization to form a virtual team and preform the virtual leadership duties. The idea is

to focus on individuals who spend time in virtual teams to gain a sense of trust and

connection so team members can emerge into virtual leadership roles. Communication

and trust are important within the virtual workplace, and virtual teams readily choose

swift trust to affect team performance positively. A multilevel process of teamwork skills,

abilities, and individual team members is required to mitigate project delays and exceed

project deliverables in a virtual team (Haselberger, 2016). However, Lockwood (2015)

indicated that virtual leaders require virtual leadership training to become proficient as a

21st-century leader. Building trust within a virtual team may require time. In some cases,

virtual leaders emerge within a virtual team frequently, and at times more than one may

appear (Ziek & Smulowitz, 2014). Myatt (2015) indicated that not everyone in a

leadership position is ready, able, and willing to lead. Organizational leaders must

recognize the need to recruit for skilled, virtual leaders who can lead successful virtual

teams.

Standards of training and competencies for virtual leaders are not in place, even

though many organizations and agencies have a virtual workplace. Readman and Rowe

(2016) indicated practice-based learning for virtual leaders is imperative and that a leader

must study in a real-world environment that encompasses virtual teams to understand

what is necessary to succeed in virtuality. The annual loss in organizational budgets

across the United States serves as evidence that the risks need mitigating. Furthermore,

proactive organizational leaders will address the complexity of this topic to ensure

support of team efforts, follow the organizational missions, and manage conflicts in

research to ensure the distribution of virtual leaders throughout organizations as more

virtual teams take on projects so organizations remains competitive and successful.

Virtual leadership must develop in a work environment over time and space. Iorio

and Taylor (2015) indicated it may be better to have some work experience with

technology and network interaction that will influence and develop positive effect within

virtual teams. Virtual team members who have experience with technology and network

interaction can establish a semblance of the leadership role within a group (Iorio &

Taylor, 2015). Quality of performance in virtual teams can increase through effective

leadership. According to Daim et al. (2012), leadership emergence for virtual

collaboration develops through using communication skills and becoming facilitators

within the virtual community. Researchers continue to find that positive engagement of

leadership and individuals building a sense of trust in a virtual team are the best ways to

develop virtual leaders (Iorio & Taylor, 2015). However, DePaoli and Ropo (2015)

contended that teams must meet face-to-face and require socializing skills to build trust in

virtual teams. Not all researchers agree on how to develop trust or on how leaders

establish bonds within virtual teams (Charbonnier-Voirin et al., 2010). The federal

government has virtual courses to train employees in job skills; however, many

government agencies and department have not used the virtual environment for

leadership development (Steinhardt, 2011). Many teams come with a unique set of

dichotomies, including diverse cultures, language barriers, and virtual miscues, which

give virtual leaders many obstacles to overcome, but a specialized skill set is necessary to

face such challenges in a productive and positive manner.

Leaders must engage with individuals to develop a sense of trust. Comprehending

some of the challenges that virtual teams encounter may mitigate risks and allow a more

productive flow of projects. Iorio and Taylor (2015) indicated that virtual teamwork is

important when establishing virtual leadership emergence. Virtual leaders who have

virtual competency training to engage the team, ask questions in the virtual environment,

consider inputs and suggestions, and involve the entire virtual team can be successful in

project delivery. Various challenges and variables affect virtual teams, and some

researchers indicate that there is a need for the physical presence of a virtual leader

(DePaoli & Ropo, 2015). Virtual teams are becoming a frequent topic that needs more

information. According to Eubanks, Palanski, Olabisi, Joinson, and Dove (2016), many

organizations continue to avoid progress in the 21st century. Researchers must address

the influencing factors of uneducated and untrained virtual team leaders and the effects

on project delivery.

Project Risk, Limitations, and Challenges

Project risk, limitations, and challenges occur due to a lag in virtual leadership

abilities and underdeveloped competencies. Virtual leaders have distinct roles and

responsibilities in the 21st-century workplace that require communication, trust, and

leadership emergence to attain success in the virtual environment. Leadership

competencies vary depending on the organization and continue to develop to include

challenges of the business industry. Organizational leaders have a duty to establish roles

and responsibilities for virtual leaders. The lack of virtual leaders and virtual

competencies and the inability to lead in the virtual environment lead organizations to

remain in the status quo, which leads to project delays and insurmountable financial

effects in organizations (Eubanks et al., 2016). It is time to face the future and embrace

the 21st century with well-qualified virtual leaders.

Organizational leaders experience challenges and try to match the pace of

technology. As virtual leaders are in demand and virtual teams are increasing,

organizational leaders may require virtual leadership training (Lockwood, 2015). E-

loyalty, for leaders, became a new phrase in the virtual world as individuals established

forms of swift trust (Yao et al., 2015). The speed at which change occurs in virtuality is

almost overwhelming, but organizational leaders need to scale to new heights in training

and competencies from a virtual perspective and address project delivery delays while

researchers continue to seek the right balance. Organizational leaders cannot afford the

high risk that occurs in virtual teams due to communication breakdowns, trust issues, and

challenges with virtual leadership (Daim et al., 2012). Researchers must continue to

investigate virtual teams and leaders.

Virtual teams may need technology to facilitate interaction, whereas face-to-face

traditional teams do not need outside resources to meet. These differences are a reality for

organizational success. Organizational leaders continue to seek ways to lead and engage

in virtual collaborations, while organizational leaders continually evolve due to advances

in telecommunications and technology (Das Gupta, 2011; Wakefield et al., 2008). Serban

et al. (2015) noted that comfort with technology has no relationship to leadership

emergence in a virtual team. Leadership emergence is essential for remaining flexible and

expecting consistent growth and development in virtual teams.

Virtual teams and leaders are essential components to the virtual workplace.

Virtual collaborations include individuals in distributed teams typically disbursed across

geographical areas and time zones who support a task or function (Auburt & Kelsey,

2003; Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Depoli & Rapo, 2012; Hill, & Bartol, 2016; Kirkman et

al., 2016; Zaugg & Davies, 2013). Through a survey conducted for the Society for

Human Resource Management, Germain and McGuire (2014, p. 357) indicated nearly

half of all U.S. organizations have virtual teams. However, not all organizational leaders

choose to keep pace with the rapid changes and requirements necessary to maintain a

virtual workplace. Daim et al. (2012) indicated that many organizational leaders are

resisting the changes that are a requirement for new operating systems for virtual teams to

be effective in the 21st century. As the Internet continues to grow quickly, organizational

leaders must keep stride with virtual training and technology to remain effective in the

virtual environment.

Researchers can use the theory of constraints lens to address project deliverables

from virtual teams. The theory of constraints is a framework that researchers use to assist

leadership in developing simple solutions to complex problems (Goldratt, 1990). As with

any organization, if projects deliverables are not meeting the demands of the

organization, the impacts to the operation are negative. Researchers use the theory of

constraints to rate the goal of achievement based on at least one limiting constraint

(Goldratt, 1990). Virtual teams set goals and objectives for project deliverables, which

was the focus in this exploratory case study.

Organizational leaders seeking positive change should implement strategic

objectives for virtual teams to ensure project deliverables are occurring within their

organizations. Fang (2015) recommended that virtual communities assist in providing

theoretical platforms for individuals, such as leadership knowledge and sharing

information, so that growth and education can occur. Researchers are choosing from an

array of concepts and theories to gauge the best approach to assist leaders with virtual

teams. However, the question remains whether virtual leaders require special

competencies to produce projects in a timely manner.

Researchers seem to vary on virtual leadership and remain somewhat unclear

when addressing leadership requirements, almost as if researchers are not on the same

page in the ever-changing virtual environment. Organizational leaders seek ways to lead

and engage in virtual collaborations, and organizations continually change due to

advances in telecommunication and technology (Das Gupta, 2011; Wakefield et al.,

2008). Traditional organizations are resistant to change and lack the commitment to

embrace the requirements leaders need in order to make virtual teams a success (Daim et

al., 2012). As the project delays and challenges of deliverables occur, many

organizational leaders are trying to address the issues. However, virtual teams and virtual

leaders continue to gain experience and learn team roles and responsibilities because they

are using the virtual environment daily. Over time, virtual leaders will continue to grow

and establish communication, a sense of trust, and connections within virtual teams.

Serban et al. (2015) noted that comfort with technology has no relationship to leader

emergence in a virtual team or to the ability to succeed in project productivity. Iorio and

Taylor (2015) indicated that leaders emerging in virtual teams differ based on their

experiences with technology. The idea is that with more practice and confidence with

technology, leaders will emerge. However, the leaders in some organizations are starting

to use experienced team leaders and facilitators to form virtual teams with roles and

responsibilities established to ensure positive outcomes.

Government agencies have also experienced change in the 21st-century virtual

workforce. The 21st-century business world is at a critical stage for virtual leaders, to

adapt, and become proficient in virtual leadership effectiveness (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002;

Fan, Chen, Wang, & Chen, 2014; Hoch & Kozlowski, 2012; & Zaugg & Davies, 2013).

Core competencies for virtual leaders focused on communication, the ability to develop

trust, and leadership emergence may affect project deliverables. These competencies can

positively affect project delivery and mitigate risk in the 21st-century workplace. Project

risk, limitations, and challenges identify what is delaying or preventing the success of

productivity and may assist researchers, organizational leaders, and virtual leaders in a

simple solution to adjust for the flow for a change with increased project deliverables.

Organizational leaders may begin to seek and focus on the resources necessary to develop

virtual team leadership competencies to mitigate risks such as delays in project

deliverables. Closing the gaps in research on virtual leaders may benefit organizations

and government agencies by understanding virtual communication, trust, leadership

emergence, and project deliverables to affect the management field positively.

The business landscape of the 21st century means virtual communication, trust,

and leadership need attention. Therefore, a need exists for more research on the topic of

virtual leadership and the challenges virtual teams encounter during project delivery

(Hetel et al., 2005, 2006; Roybal, 2010; Zhang & Fjermestad, 2006). The purpose of this

qualitative, exploratory, single case study was to explore the challenges for virtual team

leaders in the government environment that can affect project delivery. The general

problem is the skills and competencies of virtual leaders in the expanding technological

business world lag behind in virtual training. The specific problem is the challenges for

virtual leaders in the government environment that affect project delivery. It is important

to identify limitations and gaps that are causing the delays and preventing the success of

productivity in project deliverables. The goal was to develop simple solutions for

organizations to follow and adjust toward positive change that will increase productivity.

Limitations

In the 21st-century workplace, the changes from the face-to-face project teams

and travel demands to cost-saving telework, telecommuting, and virtual teams continue to

challenge virtual leaders as virtual teams increase rapidly. These rapid changes are a

challenge for organizational leaders. Daim et al. (2012) suggested project delivery is at a

higher risk of failure for virtual teams and that failure adds a 15% loss in the U.S. annual

budget (Hardy-Vallee, 2012). Some researchers believe that formularizing specific,

virtual competency skills within an organization can produce and create successful virtual

teams (Muethel & Hegl, 2010; Wakefield et al., 2008). I address virtual leadership and

virtual competencies such as communication, trust, and leadership emergence with a

focus on mitigating risks to project deliverables as a constraint lens. A key factor

involved identifying limitations and gaps that are causing delays and preventing the

success in project deliverables. Developing simple solutions for organizational leaders to

follow and adjust to the flow of change to increase productivity are important.

Communication, Trust, and Leadership Emergence

Analysis of information, communication, and technology may play a critical role

moving forward, researchers contiously analyze research materials to understand the

solutions of virtual communication, trust, and leadership (DePaoli & Ropo, 2012). As

organizations have continued to move away from the traditional face-to-face operational-

style meetings and project deliverables, so have researchers. A 21st-century workplace

topic that continues to come up repeatedly is transformational office space that places

employees at home, on travel, or in public settings (DePaoli & Ropo, 2012), which makes

virtual communication skills a key competency factor. However, even with the continued

growth of the Internet and some infrastructure implementations, many organizational

leaders continue to face challenges regarding changes that evolve in a virtual workplace,

which includes support for virtual teams and leaders and how they are supporting the

communication issues that continually arise.

Virtual teams remain fluid. Virtual teams are dynamic environments that include a

variety of cultures, values, and work ethics (Olariu & Aldea, 2014; Richards & Bilgin,

2012). Chang et al. (2014) indicated the development of virtual teams occurs in all types

of industry, and organizational leaders are responsible for addressing

miscommunications. Organizational leaders benefit from using creditable research to

justify changes in policy, procedures, and trainings in hopes of mitigating risk factors.

Virtual leaders can become positive conduits in communication, which is improving in

the 21st-century workplace environment.

An organization’s mission is at risk when uneducated and ill-equipped virtual

leaders facilitate virtual teams. Proper processes and procedures would support virtual

leaders as they face challenges in the virtual workplace. Organizations can gain success

through well-trained leadership (Mathieu et al., 2014, p. 84) and through virtual team

leaders who produce quality project deliverables. The traditional face-to-face team

element is not the norm in the 21st century, and organizational leaders must make the

decision to embrace the change. Traditional functions in organizations are becoming

flexible and hybrid by adjusting to user-friendly telecommunication and a more technical

style of operation (DePaoli & Ropo, 2015). Virtual teams are becoming more important

and popular as organizational leaders develop virtual workplace environments.

Limitations occur when virtual leaders do not grasp the essential requirements to

develop a project deliverable. It is essential for leaders to recognize and understand the

elements of virtuality because 21st-century organizations face various challenges that

affect productivity (Saafein & Shaykhian, 2014), especially project deliverables. Osman

(2014) suggested that virtual leaders learn to communicate through direct language that

provides a more concise and clear understanding for virtual team members. A virtual

leader that is unqualified may put an organization at risk unproductive project delivery.

By using direct, open, and consistent communication, virtual leaders are able to

convey time frames, deadlines, and responsibilities. Zofi (2012) indicated virtual

communication is about group discussions, shared documentations, shared calendars,

consistency with team e-mail, giving virtual members a chance to communicate openly,

and shared and open information for all. Through the use of virtual communication,

leaders can lead through virtual methods and ensure the understanding of tasks for a

successful project. Team members will begin to push back project delivery timelines and

responsibilities in a virtual environment due to their lack of understanding and fewer

interactions with leadership (Zofi, 2012). By establishing virtual communication

standards in policy, processes, and procedures, organizational leadership may begin to

make positive changes in project deliverables. The ability to communicate virtually is a

key strategy for organizational success.

Wanting to feel secure with leadership, even in, if not more so in, a virtual

environment, is human nature. Zofi (2012) indicated building trust is a key component

for the success of a virtual team. Computer-mediated communication systems do not

have to be sophisticated; however, information repositories for archiving communication

are essential (Berry, 2011; Olson & Olson, 2014). Trust of data is important, and so is

trust of virtual leaders. The key role of a virtual leader is to build trust in leadership

despite challenges (Zofi, 2012). Trust plays a vital role for many virtual teams and for

leaders trying to produce successfully in the 21st century.

As the virtual workplace continues to change and evolve into a more dynamic

virtual environment, leaders are beginning to understand the need for better

infrastructure, communication tools, and trust development. Virtual teams seem to value

trust more than face-to-face traditional teams do (Chang et al., 2014). Zofi (2012) noted

that leadership in the 21st century if less about control and more about trusting the

delegation of authority to team members. Therefore, virtual team leaders should establish

their role within groups and find a way to build trust within virtual teams.

Leaders in the virtual workplace find it more challenging and a struggle to

establish trust without the confidence of team members. Pellerin (2009) reported that

team building is an important component in developing effective teams and requires

performance improvement among the members, self-development, positive

communication, and the ability to work together to solve problems. Virtual team

accountability is complex due to fewer opportunities to relate face-to-face (DePaoli &

Ropo, 2015). Haselberger (2016, p. 103) indicated that virtual team leaders develop by

working on tasks regarding interpersonal challenges and issues with projects over time.

Well-trained and educated virtual leaders are able to address teams, build trust, and

develop complex opportunities throughout successful projects.

Virtual leaders have the challenge of establishing bonds with members and

building trust among the group in the early stages of team building. According to

Cramton (2001), teams that are not colocated may feel out of sync with other members of

the team, which in turn causes misunderstandings, miscommunication, and a lack of trust

among team members. Virtual leaders’ responsibility is to create, embed, evolve, and

establish healthy virtual teams (Ardichvili et al., 2016). However, virtual leaders who

exhibit unpredictable behaviors, fail to maintain commitments, and lack clarity in virtual

communication will create a sense of a dishonest leader (Zofi, 2012). Virtual leaders

must have the ability to know, understand, and address complex issues.

Leadership challenges were a focal point for this case study that involved

examining weak links in virtual leaders that negatively affect productivity. The

development of trust for virtual teams becomes an issue, as leaders implement virtual

teams rapidly (Zofi, 2012). The phrase swift trust refers to short-term trust established for

virtual teams (Meyerson et al., 1996). Research results point to the fact that virtual teams

have difficulty developing trusting relationships (Berry, 2011). Ardichvili et al. (2016)

indicated that with the emergence of new virtual workplace environments and significant

changes in 21st-century leadership, competencies and theories must become specialized

to achieve the goals and objectives of organizations. The phrase swift trust became

significant among virtual teams because it means expediting trust development in the

virtual community.

Not every expert will agree with the new ideas or concepts established for

complex issues. Wildman et al. (2012) noted that the phenomenon of swift trust does not

envelop all temporary teams such as virtual teams. Traditional trust development may not

work within the virtual community because some relational influences are weak within

virtual teams (Berry, 2011). Zakaria and Yusof (2015) suggested virtual teams continue

to struggle with swift trust due to culture differences, short deadlines, and different time

zones. Virtual trust or swift trust may become essential for virtual team leaders to

delegate to team members, make decisions, and facilitate in fast-paced virtual

environments that happen randomly throughout the workday, as these actions require

trust.

Regardless of the virtual team situation, some form of trust is necessary in a

virtual collaborative setting to facilitate in a positive and productive manner, and

specialized skill sets for virtual leaders are necessary for success. Researchers have

described critical influences on virtual teams due to the phenomenon of swift trust (Hoch

& Kozlowski, 2012; Wildman et al., 2012). Berry (2011) noted human resource policies

include development, training, and a focus on virtual leadership competencies. Some

organizations and government agencies are making the choice to ignore the fact that

virtual competencies are a necessity and that the ability to lead in the virtual environment

with successful project delivery will take more than a status quo mentality. Attempts to

close the gaps in 21st-century leadership must include a focus on the benefits of

understanding communication, trust, and virtual team leadership to influence the

management field successfully.

Virtual communication and the development of trust are important components of

the success of any virtual team; leadership emergence is also a vital element. In the 21st-

century workplace, the fast development of virtual teams requires highly skilled virtual

leaders who can understand the culture and remain proficient within the virtual workplace

environment (Lee, 2013). Petrie (2010) determined that due to the pace of change in the

21st-century work environment, leaders face complex challenges. The delegation of

authority, which is a normal approach to delegating tasks in government agencies and

virtual teams, may become a crucial component as virtual leaders struggle to develop

virtual communication and trust that affect virtual teams quickly in the government

telework force.

Core competencies are a motivating concept for virtual team leaders because with

training and education, the challenges and obstacles faced during virtual collaborations

will diminish. Despite the fact that researchers consistently research the topic of

leadership (Leonard, 2011), the issue of virtual leadership remains both a practical and a

theoretical challenge, and few researchers have conducted studies on virtual teams

(Kayworth & Leidner, 2002; Morgeson et al., 2010). However, due to the rapid growth of

virtual teams, it is important to commit to the challenges of competencies and focus on

the negative effects.

Virtual leaders who remain cognitive of the virtual environment and its challenges

can become successful. Iorio and Taylor (2015) sought to establish performance skills

and abilities for virtual leaders, but the definition of leadership is yet to be fully

conclusive and is more complex than one single definition. Additionally, Iorio and Taylor

suggested researchers have reviewed, discussed, and investigated a vast amount of

leadership research on various traits, yet require more research. As noted earlier,

countless definitions for leadership exist, and no single definition captures leadership

fully. Data support the concept that virtual leaders will require some form of virtual

leadership training (Lockwood, 2015). Virtual leaders must communicate effectively and

build on trust within teams to affect team performance positively.

Researchers must analyze and gauge the best approach to assist virtual leaders

who must build trusting virtual teams. Researchers need to continue to find ways to

engage virtual team leaders positively and to understand what constitutes building and

maintaining a sense of trust (Daim et al., 2012; Iorio & Taylor, 2015). Virtual leaders

face social processes that affect information processing and involve leading a remote

team (Schmidt, 2014). Zofi (2012) discussed the need for group discussions, shared

documentation, shared calendars, consistency with team e-mail, giving virtual members a

chance to communicate openly, and developing trust for virtual leaders. Virtual leaders

influence change positively through communication and trust.

Encouraging virtual communication, trust, and leadership emergence can promote

a successful virtual environment. Leaders must communicate, build trust, and remain

flexible in their work. Effective leaders foster a strong rapport within a team to create a

positive sense of trust and growth among virtual team members (Derven, 2016; Iorio &

Taylor, 2015). Trust is an essential component of sharing knowledge and building a solid

foundation of communication (Sankowska & Söderlund, 2015), leadership emergence is

a key component of virtual teams, and trust plays a vital role in the success of virtual

leaders.

Training and competencies for virtual leaders are not in place in many

organizations and government agencies, nor are policies and procedures readily available.

Practice-based learning for virtual leaders is imperative, and a virtual leader must study in

a real-world environment to succeed in virtuality (Readman & Rowe, 2016). Proactive

organizational leaders address complex topics to ensure they remain competitive in the

global market. The number of virtual leaders in organizations is increasing, and Iorio and

Taylor (2015) noted it may be better to have some work experience with technology and

network interaction that will influence the development of positive effects within virtual

teams. Virtual leaders who are aware of the challenges that virtual teams encounter and

who mitigate risks to the effective flow of projects will become assets in organizations

and agencies.

Leadership does not take place in a vacuum, and the concept of leadership must

develop in a work environment over time and space. Daim et al. (2012) noted progressive

leaders emerge within virtual collaborations through the development of communication

skills and by becoming facilitators within the virtual community. Researchers continue to

find that through the positive engagement of leaders, individuals build a sense of trust in

virtual teams (Iorio & Taylor, 2015). However, DePaoli and Ropo (2015) noted teams

must meet face-to-face and require some socializing to build trust within the virtual team.

Not all researchers agree on how people develop trust or on how leaders establish bonds

within virtual teams (Charbonnier-Voirin et al., 2010). Leaders in the federal government

have used virtual courses to train employees in job skills; however, leaders have not used

the virtual environment for leadership development (Steinhardt, 2011). Many teams come

with a unique set of dichotomies from diverse cultures, language barriers, and virtual

miscues, and virtual leaders must face such challenges in a productive and positive

manner using a specialized skill set.

Conclusion of Competencies

Virtual teams are becoming an increasingly popular topic that requires more

information. Eubanks et al. (2016) noted many organizations continue to avoid progress

with virtual competencies in the 21st century. Researchers continue to address the

challenges that influence virtual team leaders and project delivery. Research on virtual

communication, trust, and the challenges of leadership in virtual teams is increasing, and

researchers continue to recognize that virtual teams develop behavioral patterns and that

virtual team members learn from mistakes and redirect communication when possible

(Chang et al., 2011). Virtual leaders should emerge within virtual collaborations by

developing communication skills and becoming strong facilitators within the virtual

community.

Project Delivery

Virtual team leaders are responsible for project deliverables. Project leaders are

responsible for leading projects to conclusion, and virtual leaders use skills and abilities

to complete projects on time, in scope, and within budget (Lee, 2013; Zofi, 2011).

According to Osman (2014), virtual leaders must implement the following tactical steps

within a virtual environment: (a) influence the virtual team, (b) set deadlines to ensure the

project is complete on time and within budget, (c) assign responsibilities to the team, (d)

use direct language and communicate effectively, and (e) ask for volunteers. Virtual

leaders have the responsibility to gain the trust of the team and ensure members perform

their roles and responsibilities in the time allotted.

Conceptual Framework

Researchers can choose from an array of concepts and theories to gauge the best

approach to assist with management challenges and to mitigate risks. The focus of the

traditional leader-centric approach is on team leader abilities, while transformational

leadership centers on the emergence of adaptive behaviors (Charbonnier-Voirin et al.,

2010). Researchers continue to explore both leadership styles as organizational leaders

adapt to the new virtual workplace in the 21st century.

Leadership theories may begin to address some of the issues within virtual teams,

including the challenges, and obstacles that continuously cause delays in project delivery.

Charbonnier-Viorin et al. (2010) explored transformational leadership with 35 teams

using transformational theory and found significant support for the discriminant validity

of measures for transformational leadership, adaptive performance, and climate.

However, focusing solely on leadership is not addressing the whole issue.

Since 2012, researchers have consistently indicated communication, trust, and

leadership emergence are the main challenges facing virtual teams in the 21st-century

workplace (Daim et al., 2012; Iorio & Taylor, 2015; Lockwood, 2015). The consistency

of these findings may become the main obstacles to project delivery during virtual

collaborations. Productivity in project deliverables is at risk, and it is important to

develop simple solutions for organizational leaders to follow to increase productivity.

Since the beginning of virtual teams, researchers have analyzed the different

dynamics of teams, leadership, and the virtual enhancements necessary to incorporate in

organizations. Aguinis and Edwards (2014) noted that management research must keep

pace with communication technology, whereas Yao et al. (2015) recommended a best

practice approach consisting of virtual communities that develop theoretical platforms so

individuals share information and knowledge that are the key to success. Leaders use

virtual reality to train pilots and surgeons or to apply in architecture design and

entertainment (Aguinis & Edwards, 2014). Virtual reality can enhance experiments for

researchers to draw inferences about causality and external validity in natural

environments (Aguinis & Edwards, 2014). The same technology can offer extraordinary

advancements to the management field, organizations, and government agencies.

By implementing virtual reality in the workplace, progression ascends to another

level for organizations. Sinani (2016) indicated there is a lack of research on the virtual

leadership practices required to produce successful virtual teams. The successful

adaptation of virtual team dynamics will only occur through quality of communication

and interpersonal team trust (Chang et al., 2014). In the 21st-century workplace,

leadership must focus on progression and on leading successfully in a virtual workplace.

Researchers continued to disagree on virtual teams, virtual leadership, and virtual

reality in the 21st-century workplace, but it is critical to mitigate the risks to project

deliverables. Arnold and Loughlin’s (2013) qualitative research study of business,

government, and military leaders resulted in outcomes for both participative and directive

behaviors in virtual leaders. The research addressed the need for intellectual stimulation,

creative thinking, and problem solving with the ability to produce high-performance and

well-skilled virtual teams that successfully produce project delivery as a direct result of

well-trained leaders (Arnold & Loughlin, 2013). The loss in annual budgets due to

project deliverables is a critical responsibility of researchers, organizational leadership,

and the virtual community, and it is time to address the virtual challenges for leaders and

to mitigate project delays.

A proper framework of the knowledge of limitations and constraints addresses the

challenges organizations face in the 21st-century workplace. Derven (2016) noted the

type of leader essential to a virtual team’s success is the one who includes all participants

on the team and captures the best ideas during virtual collaborations; the adaptable leader

ready for change best suits virtual teams, virtual leadership, and project success. Virtual

leaders can negatively affect the outcome of project deliverables if they are not well-

trained or do not have the skill set to lead in the virtual community. The virtual

workplace continues to change, and the number of virtual teams continually evolving is

increasing rapidly. Organizational leaders who continually try to increase technology and

never address the performance of the virtual team may be misallocating resources

because the true needs are not technology based (Chang et al., 2014). The misallocation

of resources for virtual teams and their leaders is a human and technical phenomenon.

Researchers have struggled with a proper approach, theory, and leadership style to

evaluate and support as a remedy for the rapid virtuality changes occurring. Internet

technologies and workplace technology-based applications are a reality for the workforce

and status quo is not an option (Hanna, P., 2012; Yılmaz, Yılmaz, Öztürk, Sezer, &

Karademir, 2015). It is critical to address and adapt to virtual challenges. Rapid change is

a challenge for organizational leadership. Daim et al. (2012) noted project delivery is at a

higher risk of failure for virtual teams and the failure has added a 15% loss in the U.S.

annual budget (Hardy-Vallee, 2012). Some researchers believe by formularizing specific,

virtual competency skills, organizational leaders can produce and create successful

virtual teams (Krumm, & Hertel, 2013; Muethel & Hegl, 2010; Wakefield et al., 2008).

Additionally, most research explorations have taken place in university settings instead of

virtual workplace settings, which means researchers cannot replicate or simulate these

studies in the business environment (Purvanova, 2014). Researchers should address the

phenomenon of virtual teams and project delivery with an approach that goes to the core

of the issue.

The 21st-century research approach seems to lack realism. Lockwood (2015)

noted that by 2020, the number of virtual teams in organizations will triple. Hamersly and

Land (2015) noted the importance of organizational leaders creating policies, procedures,

and standards for virtual leaders while establishing the virtual infrastructure. With

change, establishing policy assists in governing organizations.

Theory of Constraints

In the 21st century, leadership is seeking ways to save time and money while

addressing the issues of risk to the annual budget. Pepper (2010) noted that change

efforts, although complex, can lead to a reduction in error rates that challenge virtual

leaders. The belief is few errors to communication, trust, and leadership can bring about a

higher success rate for virtual teams (Pepper, 2010). The challenges for virtual leaders

negatively affect virtual teams, which creates challenges, obstacles, and failures to project

delivery (Lee, 2013). The theory of constraints is the quickest way to develop an

implementation to a successful system approach (Woeppel, 2016) such as project

deliverables. Organizational leaders should be able to focus on positive project delivery,

including any limiting factors that can fail a project.

Organizational leaders, with the help of human resources leaders, can develop

virtual competencies that will assist in creating positive communication, trust, and

emerging leaders to the benefit and success of virtual teams. Hu et al. (2015) indicated

the theory of constraints is an effective tool for communication, team building, increased

throughput, reduction of inventory, and reduction of costs. The theory of constraints is a

framework and logical system thinking process for this case study on virtual team

leadership and project delivery.

The hope is that organizational leaders learn to understand constraints and

manage limitations because through knowledge comes prevention, and with prevention

comes positive project deliverables. Prior research from 2013 to 2016 indicated

communication, trust, and leadership are the primary obstacles to virtual collaboration for

leaders and teams (Daim et al., 2012; Iorio & Taylor, 2015; Lockwood, 2015). These

same challenges are the leading causes that virtual team leaders must address as areas of

concentration in core competencies to ensure successful project deliverables.

The theoretical framework of constraints continuously creates improvements for

organizations, while addressing system performance and positive changes. Woeppel

(2016) noted the theory of constraints identifies limitations and the weakest link to

determine improvements in productivity. This is a continual cycle type of theory, and

because the Internet will continue to evolve rapidly, it is essential for the theory to

maintain and keep pace with the changes.

The theory of constraints was suitable for addressing the limitations for virtual

leaders and project delivery timelines. The theory of constraints is essential for profit

application, identifying limitations to supply chains, and ensuring the removal of negative

constraints for customers meeting the requirements of projects (Šukalová & Ceniga,

2015, p. 139). Researchers must focus on the challenges and barriers that decrease the

effectiveness in project delivery, which is vital in the workplace (Battistella et al., 2015).

Additionally, by using the theory of constraints, I was able to focus systematically on

virtual team leaders’ competencies that are links to risk factors for project deliverables.

Through an exploration of the research, the goal was to explore which virtual

leadership competencies may improve project delivery. The theory of constraints is a

management paradigm, and Goldratt (1990) noted that organizational leaders can solve

problems in leadership alignment, project management, supply chain, and production

with the strategies and tools developed from the theory of constraints. Goldratt indicated

a company (chain) is only as strong as the weakest link, so, by exposing weak

competencies of virtual leaders, the system approach also links the weaknesses that

challenge and hinder successful project delivery. A strategy of mapping the weak links in

project deliverables to challenges faced by leaders can begin to inform and address

successful virtual processes. The focus of the theory of constraints is on any process that

slows the speed and throughput and causes delays in the performance process (p. 75).

Goldratt defined success as a measurement of an organization’s ability to complete

successful throughput (Woeppel, 2016), which is important because project delivery is a

mitigating factor to the success of an organization.

The major component of the theory of constraints is to address the root causes of

project delivery delays. Since 2012, several researchers have continuously analyzed the

negative effects or any advances for virtual team collaborations and leadership training to

further skills, competencies, and future developments (Daim et al., 2012, Hoch &

Kozlowski, 2014; Krumm, & Hertel, 2013; Pepper, 2010). Theory of constraints is a

thinking process, and researchers use the theory to frame and assist leaders in developing

simple solutions to complex problems (Goldratt, 1990). Through the ability to understand

how virtual teams perform, trust, and communicate, leaders may be able to remain

competitive (Berry, 2001). By acknowledging the limiting factors and developing simple

solutions, the theory of constraints can provide leadership with a focus toward successful

project deliverables in virtual collaborations.

A qualitative method approach, and, more specifically, a system approach that

addresses the constraints and limitations for successful delivery framed this exploratory

study and led to answers regarding the why and how questions to assist in the

stakeholders’ investments. Organizational leaders, with the help of human resources

leaders, may develop a framework to implement new training tools and social change

strategies for positive effects on project deliverables. Goldratt (1990) noted that leaders

using the theory of constraints may solve problems in leadership alignment, project

management, supply chain, and production. Theory of constraints is a management

approach that assists in identifying the systematic limitations to successful productivity.

As such, this theory for the production of an organization’s project deliverables is

sustainable through change and viable for virtual leader progression in the 21st century.

Haselberger (2016) indicated a multilevel process is necessary to find limitations and

gaps that cause delays in the completion of project tasks, mitigate project delays, and

exceed project deliverable standards. Organizations can remain competitive in the virtual

workplace and organizational leaders can create effective virtual teams by understanding

the constraints and limitations of virtual leaders, after which successful project delivery is

possible.

Rationale for Theoretical Choice

Researchers have applied a theory that includes models, tools, and strategies for a

research study. Nave (2002) indicated a montage of methodologies and theories

contribute to a framework for improving a product, customer service, industry, or process

(p. 73). Leadership in virtual teams requires a framework of competencies to affect

project delays positively. However, researchers have not agreed on how to assist with the

forward progression in the 21st-century workplace; nevertheless, it is vital to mitigate the

risks occurring in project delivery.

Six Sigma, lean thinking, and the theory of constraints are all sound methodology

approaches in the management field. Each theory includes concepts, tools, strategies, and

techniques to improve workplace performance. There are also many parallels among

these theories due to the scientific methodology in all of them (Rawson, Kannan, &

Furman, 2016). The use of any or all three could be a possibility for this research study.

Each theory has strengths and weaknesses, and researchers must find a theory that

will enhance value and define research in a positive manner. Researchers should compare

and contrast theories that illuminate different perspectives (de Jesus Pacheco, 2015). Two

authenticated theories for products, customer service, and the manufactory-industrial

fields are Six Sigma and lean thinking. The focus of the theory of constraints is on project

productivity, limitations, and constraints that negatively affect performance.

By establishing a clear understanding of the theories, it becomes obvious which

theory was most suitable for the research study. According to Nave (2002), one of the

difficult processes for a researcher is knowing and understanding which method or theory

to choose. In this exploratory case study, the goal was to find strategies and tools to

address the limiting factors causing the delays in project delivery.

Each approach has the ability to address specific components of the issues. Six

Sigma relates to customer service and products, while lean thinking is an operational

theory with a focus on waste (Sunder, 2016; Thangarajoo & Smith, 2015). Six Sigma

includes a focus on product, which in this study was the project. Additionally, the focus

of lean thinking could include the risk aspects of wasted time, productivity, and money

due to project loss.

Researchers using the theory of constraints may be able to address the challenges

facing virtual teams and speak to productivity in project delivery. Virtual teams cause an

influx of projects that in turn cause organizations to multitask to levels that are not

practical and lead to reductions in successful outcomes (Jacob & McClelland, 2001). The

theory of constraints assists in drawing attention to the root cause of reduction in

productivity (Jacob & McClelland, 2001). The theory of constraints addresses a system of

improvements within an organization, so researchers can produce positive change and

organizational leaders can implement strategies and tools (Rand, 2000). Additionally,

research in the virtual realm by Šukalová and Ceniga (2015) included vital information

about the critical risks to successful project deliveries, limitations to supply chains, and

removal of negative constraints for projects. A quick way to address the challenges for

virtual leaders is to develop an implementation to a successful system approach

(Woeppel, 2016). Virtual leaders will continue to face virtual challenges and delays to

project deliverables, which cause risks to annual budgets. The research approach in this

case study was a vital step toward mitigating risks to project deliverables.

Since the 1970s, leaders in several organizations have developed hybrids of the

Six Sigma approach in hopes to progress at a faster rate with customer service challenges,

management improvements, and quality products. Analysts developed Six Sigma in the

1970s as a framework for leaders at Motorola to address poor product quality and focus

on customer requirements (Sunder, 2016). Rawson et al. (2016) studied Six Sigma and

believed the approach is about identifying and managing out-of-control processes that

cause unanticipated variations in resources. Sunder (2016) indicated a newer hybrid

model of lean Six Sigma is becoming more attractive in manufacturing and servicing

industries across the world. The focus of Six Sigma is on frameworks for product

development and process improvements.

Multilevel frameworks and logical thinking models continue to assist researchers

as they strive to understand the dynamic differences for traditional teams and virtual

teams. Researchers are taking the multilevel framework approach when studying virtual

teams (Charbonnier-Voirin et al., 2010; Maynard et al., 2015; Wildman et al., 2012). It is

essential to understand the complexity involved in creating and maintaining virtual teams

and the fluidity component in the 21st-century workplace. Through virtual engagement

with leaders, sharing about communication, swift trust, and understanding leadership

emergence, I should be able to grasp the core challenges and obstacles within virtual

teams that ultimately affect project delivery.

The operational framework for a leaner approach to a high-performing production

flow is a solid management concept for manufacturing and the automobile industry. The

focus of the lean thinking approach is production flow (Nave, 2002). Lean thinking

theory started at Toyota in the 1950s, had some success, and became competitive with

quality products and production flow (Thangarajoo & Smith, 2015). The focus of lean

thinking is high-quality products at lower prices with a strategy of receiving the products

in a shorter time frame.

Virtual teams and collaborations influence where, when, and how employees go

about their daily tasks and complete projects. Virtual teams are colocated, and the focus

of the change in face-to-face meetings is reductions in cost and the speed of deliverables;

however, a vast amount of virtual expectation consists of challenges in team-level effort

and project production (Lee, 2013; Magnusson et al., 2014). Noncolocated teams may

feel out of sync regarding a mutual awareness of other members of the team, which in

turn causes misunderstandings, miscommunication, and challenges to trust among team

members (Cramton, 2001; Schaubroeck & Yu, 2017). According to Rand (2000), the

theory of constraints is a process for continual improvement, can address weakness in

organizations, and is a valuable tool in the case of rapidly changing technology. In

essence, virtual leadership continues to encounter challenges that affect project delivery.

Virtual team leaders must remain proficient in the 21st-century workplace.

Several researchers have emphasized making improvements to technology and traditional

options, such as e-mail, chat, and discussion boards (Lin, 2010). However, the focus must

shift to address the risks in project delivery (Zofi, 2011). Just as the risks are changing, so

should the research; it is time to address the focus of the theory, the approach, and the

processes so that 21st-century organizations can remain current and competitive.

Organizational leaders continue to gain knowledge and understanding of the

technology and infrastructure for the 21st-century workplace; however, it is just as vital

that knowledge and understanding of the virtual leaders’ capabilities and competencies

receive the same acknowledgment and focus. Researchers should remain current with the

requirements of 21st-century organizations’ challenges and risks. According to

Kozlowski et al. (2015), virtual leaders and organizational leadership can only succeed if

they learn to adapt to the challenges of the virtual environment. In addition,

organizational leaders must understand the roles and competencies that virtual leaders

require for the virtual workplace. The strength of the weakest link (Nave, 2002; Tulasi,

Rao, & Tirupati, 2012), including research and performance limits. The analysis of the

literature unveiled how virtual team leaders’ challenges compromise project delivery.

The framework of the theory of constraints was a logical thinking system process

for this exploratory case study. The thinking process is a tool that addresses when a

constraint occurs, and where, to discover the core risk of the issue (Naor, Bernardes, &

Coman, 2013). Goldratt (1990) indicated that organizations have goals to make money,

and anything that causes a reduction or delay to that goal is a constraint. Rand (2000)

indicated the theory of constraints, as a thinking process, is a tool for continual

improvement because the theory of constraints is an effective strategy for

communication, team building, increased throughput, inventory reduction, and cost

reduction (Hu et al., 2015). As the researcher in this case study, I must address the risks

that affect the completion of projects in a timely manner and I must use the theory of

constraints to address the challenges that affect virtual team leaders and their ability to

produce successful project deliverables.

Relation to Current Study

Virtual team leaders’ competencies assist in the successful outcome of virtual

projects. It is vital to know and understand how virtual competencies relate to project

delivery. Obstacles for virtual leaders remain a challenge and limit virtual teams in the

constructs of communication, trust development, and leadership emergence. Saafein and

Shaykhian (2014) indicated organizations must understand the influence leaders have on

virtual teams, on allocating resources, and on making virtual teams a priority within the

operation. Berry (2011) noted one of the roles considered important in teams is

leadership. However, leadership in virtual teams requires a framework, and researchers

do not agree on the basic leadership definition or on how to assist with the forward

progression of 21st-century virtual team leader responsibilities.

The challenges for this topic exist on many levels, and it is important to

understand the limitations that cause projects delays. Researchers have studied leadership

effectiveness in traditional environments (Fleishman et al., 1991; House & Mitchell,

1974; Stogdill, 1948) but little information is available in the virtual workplace. In the

21st-century workplace, the challenges virtual leaders face in relation to project delivery

remain elusive and gaps exist. Researchers are not in agreement on which style of

leadership is necessary to benefit virtual teams or on which virtual setting needs

facilitators (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; O’Leary & Mortensen, 2010). Iorio and Taylor

(2015) contended that leaders who emerge in virtual teams differ based on their personal

experiences with technology.

The concepts of communication, development of trust, leadership emergence, and

productivity of project deliverables may emerge as patterns and themes in the research.

Virtuality refers to the exclusive use of technology for communication and collaboration

(Serban et al., 2015). Sankowska and Söderlund (2015) indicated trust is one component

of a successful virtual team. The landscape of virtuality is continually changing at a rapid

rate, and remaining in status quo is a disadvantage for a 21st-century organization

(Pepper, 2010). Knowing how to collaborate in a virtual team setting is essential.

The 21st-century workplace is complex. Organizational leaders can influence the

performance of virtual teams, and virtual leaders have the responsibility to understand the

virtual environment (Eisenberg, Gibbs, & Erhardt, 2016). Virtual teams must increase

productivity, competitive advantage, and innovation in organizations (Guzman, Ramos,

Seco, & Esteban, 2010; Hanson, Ward, & Chin, 2012; Siebdrat, Hoegl, & Ernst, 2009).

Project risk and limitations will occur due to a lag in virtual leadership abilities and

underdeveloped competencies. Since 1996, researchers continue to use empirical

evidence to show the challenges of leadership competencies in virtual teams (Chang et

al., 2014), and to have discussions on effects on virtual teams, collaborations, and the

21st-century workplace. Zofi (2012, p. 153) indicated that even though project

deliverables are measurable for successful outcomes, they can comingle with

communication, trust, and leadership emergence. Virtual organizations succeed if

leadership can adapt with the challenges of the virtual environment and understand the

roles and competencies that virtual leaders require (Kozlowski et al., 2015). Virtual

leaders have roles and responsibilities that may require certain skills, abilities, and

competencies to perform successfully.

Leadership competencies vary depending on the organization and continue to

develop to include challenges in the business industry. Any organization that remains

status quo is at a disadvantage (Pepper, 2010), and organizational leaders must face the

technical infrastructure challenges in the 21st century. Virtual teams cause organizational

challenges, and leaders must learn to lead remotely and develop trust among virtual team

members (Saafein & Shaykhian, 2014). By adapting leadership training, understanding

the required skills necessary for virtuality, and applying the competencies to make

progress in virtual collaborations, organizational leaders can affect and produce project

deliverables. The days of leaders knowing and understanding all the complexities of

every project no longer exist (Zofi, 2012). Developing well-qualified virtual leaders in

the 21st-century workplace should be a goal of the leadership in organizations and

agencies in the global marketplace.

Challenges and obstacles. Organizational leaders need to address the challenges

virtual leaders face, focus on virtual competencies, and address project delivery delays,

and researchers should continue to seek the right balance for virtual competencies and

project deliverables. Organizational leaders struggle to match the pace of technology

(Aguinis & Edwards, 2014; Lee, 2013; Zofi, 2012). Virtual changes are obstacles that

cause a breakdown in the change process. Lockwood (2015) indicated that as more

virtual leaders are in demand and virtual teams are increasing, organizational leaders may

require virtual leadership training. New phrases in the virtual workplace that may soon be

commonplace include e-loyalty and swift trust (Wildman et al., 2012; Yao et al., 2015).

The speed at which things change in virtuality is fast, and the changes occurring in the

virtual workplace are complex and continue to influence projects and productivity.

Researchers are beginning to evaluate and address the issues of temporal emergence,

especially processes that bring about sudden, radical, and unpredictable changes in

systems (Floricel, Michela, & Piperca, 2016, p. 3). Organizations cannot afford the high

risk that virtual teams cause due to communication breakdown, trust issues, and

challenges with virtual leadership (Daim et al., 2012). Researchers must take the Internet,

technology, and rapid changes seriously and place a priority on exploring virtual teams

and leaders.

Face-to-face traditional teams do not need outside resources to meet, but virtual

teams require technology. This difference requires organizational leaders to engage in

virtual collaborations while adapting in the telecommunication and technology virtual

workplace (Das Gupta, 2011; Wakefield et al., 2008). Organizational leaders should

remain flexible through the growth, development, and changes, but continue to seek ways

to recruit well-educated, well-trained virtual leaders for success and productivity in the

virtual workplace. The Internet continues to grow rapidly, and organizational leaders

must keep stride with virtual training and technology, so they are effective in the 21st-

century virtual environment.

Haselberger (2016) noted that virtual leaders find success within virtual teams

when they can carry out tasks effectively and efficiently through to a project deliverable.

Virtual leadership training is innovative and emerging and a process that requires

organizational leaders to remain flexible, creative, and focused on team environments in

the 21st-century workplace (Haselberger 2016; Olsson & Backstrom, 2012).

Organizational leaders should seek ways for virtual leaders to gain skills, abilities, and

competencies.

U.S. government. Even U.S. government agencies have changed with regard to

the 21st-century virtual workforce and the government teleworkers and telecommuting

has increased substantially since the President’s Executive Order 13589 on Travel and

Increase Telework (SHRM.org., 2013). In November 2011, President Obama signed

executive order for government employees to take strategic alternatives to travel that

would reduce costs, the suggested methods were to utilize technology via teleconferences

and video conferencing; in addition, a mass inventory of all technology government-wide

occurred to ensure effectiveness and efficiencies, even those that were currently

teleworking (SHRM, org. 2013). Pepper (2010) noted that any organization that remains

status quo is at a disadvantage. All organizational leaders face the challenges of technical

infrastructure and maintaining pace with 21st-century workplaces; however, a virtual

leader encounters risk factors during project delivery and must receive the same level of

competencies a any leader (Pepper, 2010). As recently as 2012, many federal agencies

failed to recognize the integration of policies, standards, and operation plans (Fuerth &

Faber 2012; Hines, 2012) into the virtual environment. Organizational leaders have a

responsibility to ensure virtual team leaders have the training, skills, and competencies

needed to make positive strides in a virtual workplace and can effectively produce project

deliverables.

The focus of this study was on virtual leaders and project deliverables, so

organizations, including government agencies, can remain successful and competitive. It

is important to develop solutions for organizations to follow and adjust to 21st-century

virtual changes that will assist with project deliverables. A component of effective

government virtual leaders is diversity due to the differences in space and culture that

occur in the 21st-century work environment. Virtual teams are diverse and have both

differences and similarities. According to Derven (2016), if harnessed properly, virtual

team leaders can become a source of innovation and new ideas. A virtual leader has a

style of leadership that supports making a variety of self-managed decisions in relation to

the complexity of national, cultural, diversified, and globalized teams, which requires a

different approach than the traditional face-to-face team (Kirkman et al., 2016). Inclusive

leaders are essential to virtual teams because they focus on the inclusion of all

participants on the team and developing the best ideas of the team (Derven, 2016).

Virtual team leader competencies are a relatively new phenomenon that organizational

leaders and human resources managers must address as the leaders continue to need

assistance in growth and development in their new roles and responsibilities.

The theory of constraints was the framework for this case study. As with any

organization or government agency, if projects deliverables are not meeting demand, the

effects can become a negative result. The theory of constraints rates the goal of

achievement based on at least one limiting constraint (Goldratt, 1990). The concept for an

emerging leader is to identify what is delaying or preventing the success of productivity,

identify a simple solution, and then adjust the flow for a change that will increase

productivity. By focusing on the resources necessary to develop virtual leader

competencies to mitigate risks in project deliverables and finding the support necessary,

social change can begin to create a plan of action with a focus on positive virtual

leadership skills and to develop respectable roles and responsibilities for future virtual

leaders in society.

Gap in the Research

Leaders in some organizations and government agencies are making the choice to

ignore the fact that virtual leaders are a requirement for the 21st century, that the

establishment of virtual competencies is a necessity, and that the ability to lead in the

virtual environment with successful project delivery will take more than a status quo

mentality. Kornfeld and Kara (2011) noted the lack of literature on virtual teams,

integration with project innovation, and virtual leadership strategies. Although

researchers have focused on organizational leaders’ and the technology infrastructure,

few researchers have used empirical evidence to show the lack of leadership

competencies in virtual teams (Chang et al., 2014). Researchers have explored swift trust

(Hoch & Kozlowski, 2012) and its critical effect on virtual teams since 1996; some

researchers have indicated the phenomenon of swift trust does not entirely envelop all

temporary teams such as virtual teams (Wildman et al., 2012). Berry (2011) indicated

more policies and procedures should include development, training, and virtual

competencies for virtual team leaders focused on organizational culture, mission, vision,

and goals.

It is essential to understand that true change begins with policy in the government

workplace, which assists in agency governance. Organizational leaders should create

policies as they move into the 21st-century virtual community to establish policies,

procedures, and a virtual leadership infrastructure (Hamersly & Land, 2015). Eubanks et

al. (2016) indicated that leaders at many organizations and government agencies continue

to avoid progressing into the future; true progress for virtual leaders and teams involves

developing within time limits and budget.

Virtual leaders must create a framework with shared goals to build

communication, develop trust, establish a commitment of resolving differences, remove

obstacles, and create accountability among team members. For decades, forming teams in

organizations varied depending on the requirements, but the most common reason to

build a team is to enhance productivity; increase flexibility and speed of decision making;

and establish workforce diversity, quality, and customer satisfaction (Gibson et al., 2009;

Hollenbeck et al., 2007; Larson & LaFasto, 1989). Albanese (1994) suggested the true

reason to develop a team is to improve project results. Virtual team leaders should

develop teams, establish their role within the group, and find a way to succeed in project

delivery.

Summary and Conclusions

Researchers continue to point to traditional leadership competencies instead of

addressing the more relevant 21st-century virtual requirements (Daim et al., 2012; Hoch

& Kozlowski, 2014; Pepper, 2010). Researchers should focus on virtual training with an

emphasis on communication, swift trust, and virtual teams. It is time to draw attention to

the critical components that will increase positive outcomes in project delivery.

Destructive virtual collaborations will lead to delays in project deliverables (Weimann et

al., 2013). The goal is to have organizational leaders recognize and mitigate the risks that

occur during virtual collaborations.

Project deliverables and productivity in virtual collaborations should match pace

with technology and the growth of an organization. Leaders who cannot virtually lead in

informational communication technology environments increase the risk of not meeting

project delivery time frames (Daim et al., 2012). Project delivery failure is a strong

representation of the current ineffectiveness of virtual leaders with a 15% loss annually to

the U.S. budget (Hardy-Vallee, 2012). Weimann et al. (2013) indicated that the lack of

virtual training and failed project delivery times may be due, in part, to a lack of

communication, swift trust, and leadership, which leads to reduced productivity.

Researchers must focus on the benefits of understanding communication, improving

aspects of trust, and overcoming the lack of leadership emergence for virtual teams.

The virtual environment can lead to successful project delivery, but more than the

status-quo mentality will be necessary to achieve this goal. Kornfeld and Kara (2011)

noted the significant lack of literature on virtual teams, integration with project

innovation, and virtual leadership strategies. Researchers continue to focus on attempts at

improving infrastructure and technology within organizations, and few researchers have

used empirical evidence to show the lack of leadership competencies in virtual teams

(Chang et al., 2014). Since 1996, researchers have explored swift trust (Hoch &

Kozlowski, 2012) and its critical impact on virtual teams, and some researchers have

noted the phenomenon of swift trust does not include all temporary teams, such as virtual

teams (Wildman et al., 2012). Berry (2011) indicated more policies and procedures

should include development, training, and virtual competencies for virtual team leaders

focused on organizational culture, mission, vision, and goals.

True change begins with policy in the government workplace. Organizational

leaders should create policies as they move into the 21st-century virtual community to

establish policies, procedures, and a virtual leadership infrastructure (Hamersly & Land,

2015). Leaders in many organizations and government agencies continue to avoid

progressing into the future (Eubanks et al., 2016). True progress for a virtual team

involves developing a project within the time limit and budget. Researchers must address

the influencing factors of uneducated and untrained virtual team leaders and the impacts

on project delivery.

I completed this case study and addressed the gap in the literature by

concentrating on the key factor needed to assist in identifying the limitations and gaps

that are causing delays and preventing the success of productivity in project deliverables.

Social change will occur in organizations as leaders develop simple solutions to follow

and adjust the flow for change that will increase productivity. Haselberger (2016) noted a

multilevel process is necessary to find limitations and gaps that cause delays in

completing project tasks, mitigate project delays, and exceed project deliverable

standards. Weimann et al. (2013) indicated failed project delivery may be due, in part, to

weak competencies such as a lack of communication, a lack of swift trust, and

uneducated leadership that limit project productivity. Organizational leaders can remain

competitive in the virtual workplace and create effective virtual teams by understanding

the constraints and limitations of virtual leaders; after addressing those constraints,

successful project delivery is possible. Therefore, the purpose of this exploratory case

study was to examine the challenges virtual leaders face in the government environment

and the impact on project delivery that these challenges cause. It is time for positive

impacts on communication, trust, and project delivery after policies, standards, and

operational strategies are in place to assist leadership in a government agencies. Chapter

3 will include detailed accounts of the methodology used to collect the necessary data to

address the challenges facing virtual leaders and project delivery in the 21st-century

workplace.

Chapter 3: Research Method

The purpose of this qualitative, exploratory, single case study was to explore the

challenges for virtual team leaders in the government environment that can affect project

delivery. Scott and Wildman (2015) have noted evolution in conceptions of how to

complete work and the emergence of competing ideas about the competencies and

attributes appropriate for fluid work environments. Leaders of organizations, including

leaders the U.S. government, are working toward flattening the hierarchy, reducing travel

costs, increasing opportunities for telework and telecommuting, and empowering virtual

team leaders (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Charlier, Stewart,

Greco, & Reeves, 2016; Hertel et al., 2005; Jarvenpaa & Leider, 1999; Meister &

Willyerd, 2010; Rapp, Gilson, Mathieu, & Ruddy, 2016). However, research on virtual

teams is still in the infancy stages (Inkpen & Tsang, 2016). With this study, I worked to

fill a gap in the literature by examining virtual teams from the perspective of government

virtual team leaders. The study involved viewing their challenges through a theory of

constraints lens to address the competencies of virtual communication, trust, leadership,

and project delays. Organizational leaders may use this study to aid in better selecting

virtual leaders with abilities to build virtual teams that can effectively address the

challenges within those teams and develop successful project deliverables. Lockwood

(2015) noted that, by 2020, the virtual team capacity of organizations will triple in size.

Organizational leaders should create policies for virtual communities and focus on

procedures when establishing the infrastructure for virtual leaders (Hamersly & Land,

2015). Chapter 3 includes discussions of the research design, rationale, role of the

researcher, and qualitative methodology, as well as instrumentation and data analysis.

Additionally, I discuss trustworthiness, validity of the study, and ethical procedures. This

study involved gathering evidence and gaining knowledge of how and why government

virtual leaders encounter challenges that may cause deficiencies in project deliverables,

and organizational leaders may apply the results in organizations and in government

agencies so that true social change may occur.

Research Design and Rationale

The main research question was as follows: How do virtual leaders in the

government environment describe the challenges of leading a virtual team and how do

these challenges impact project delivery? The specific research subquestions for the study

were the following:

Subquestion 1: How do government virtual team leaders describe the manner in

which challenges negatively affect project delivery?

Subquestion 2: What are virtual leaders doing to overcome the challenges

associated with effective project delivery?

The theory of constraints provides a framework for creating improvements in

organizations while addressing system performance and seeking positive change.

Organizational leaders may be able to focus on positive project delivery while limiting

factors that lead to project failure through a theory of constraints viewpoint. Project

delivery is at a higher risk of failure for virtual teams (Daim et al., 2012). Hu et al. (2015)

noted the theory of constraints is an effective tool for communicating, team building,

reducing inventory, and reducing costs. The theory of constraints aligned with the

purpose and problem of this study.

The focus of the study underpinned the lack of virtual training and competencies

for virtual leaders and teams, which continues to affect project delivery times, creates

challenges and obstacles, and leads to failed project performance. Recent research has

consistently shown communication, trust, and leadership to be the leading obstacles to

virtual collaboration for leaders and teams (Charlier et al., 2016; Derven, 2016; Hampton

et al., 2017; Iorio & Taylor, 2015; Lockwood, 2015). These challenges are the primary

causes that virtual team leaders must address in core competencies created to ensure

successful project deliverables. The theory of constraints was a logical framework for this

exploratory case study on virtual leadership and project delivery. As a management

paradigm (Goldratt, 1990), the theory of constraints offers organizational leaders a set of

strategies and tools for solving problems in leadership alignment, project management,

supply chain, and production.

My hope is that organizational leaders can use my findings to better manage the

limitations, mitigate the risks, gain knowledge through prevention, and develop positive

project deliverables. The theory of constraints is a thinking process, and as such, the

theory frames and assists leaders in developing simple solutions to complex problems

(Goldratt, 1990). Berry (2001) indicated that by understanding how virtual teams

perform, trust, and communicate, leaders may be able to remain competitive. By

acknowledging limiting factors and developing simple solutions, the theory of constraints

can provide leaders with a focus toward successful project deliverables.

Researchers can use the theory of constraints to identify limitations to

productivity; thus, the theory is sustainable for producing an organization’s project

deliverables. Leaders may be able to use the findings from this study to focus on the

cause of project delivery delays. The results may serve to promote further skills,

competencies, and developments for virtual team collaborations and leadership training

(Charlier et al., 2016; Daim et al., 2012; Derven, 2016; Hampton et al., 2017, Hill &

Bartol, 2016; Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014; Pepper, 2010). Organizational leaders may

improve project delivery by establishing virtual leadership competencies and virtual team

effectiveness.

Six Sigma, lean thinking, and the theory of constraints are all sound

methodological approaches in the management field. Each approach includes concepts,

tools, strategies, and techniques to improve performance in the workplace. Nave (2002)

indicated that one of the most difficult aspects of a research process is understanding the

choice of the theory process. To provide readers a better understanding of these theories

and why the theory of constraints was the right choice for this research project, I outline

each theory below and explain why I ultimately selected the theory of constraints.

Six Sigma is about customer service; its focus is on frameworks for product

development and process improvements. In the 1970s, Six Sigma emerged as a

framework for Motorola leaders to address poor product quality by focusing on customer

requirements (Sunder, 2016). Since 1970, the leaders of several organizations have

developed hybrids of this methodology to work toward faster rates with improvements

and quality. Sunder (2016) indicated that the hybrid models of lean Six Sigma are

becoming more attractive to manufacturing and service industries around the world. Lean

thinking is an operational tool that leaders use to remove waste from organizations.

Thangarajoo and Smith (2015) noted the lean approach was initially developed in

the automobile industry and then branched out into banking, mining, public service, and

health care. Toyota had great success with the lean approach, which made the company

globally competitive with quality products and an efficient production flow (Thangarjaoo

& Smith, 2015). Nave (2002) contended that lean thinking is important for production

flow because the focus is on producing high-quality products at lower prices with a

strategy of receiving the products in a shorter time frame. The system is only as strong as

the weakest link which will limit performance (Nave, 2002; Tulasi et al., 2012).

Organizational leadership is at a critical point in gaining knowledge and understanding

challenges in the 21st-century workplace.

Organizational leaders should focus on developing knowledge and understanding

of virtual leaders’ capabilities and competencies, and implementing strategies and tools to

address challenges and project deliverables. The theory of constraints addresses system

improvements within an organization. The focus of the theory of constraints is on the

process that slows the speed and throughput, which ultimately causes delays in the

performance process (Rand, 2000). In the case of virtual team leaders and the risk to

project deliverables, organizational leaders must seek the answers and implement

strategies and tools to address the weakest link.

Virtual teams remain fluid in the 21st-century workplace. The theory of

constraints is a process for continual improvement (Rand, 2000). Kozlowski et al. (2015)

indicated that virtual organizations can only succeed if organizational leaders learn to

adapt to the challenges of the virtual environment and understand the roles and

competencies that virtual team leaders require. The theory of constraints may be an

answer for organizational leaders seeking to complete projects in a timely manner.

Role of the Researcher

The researcher is the primary data collection instrument in qualitative studies.

Researchers offer their interpretations through personal experiences, which leads to a

more holistic and textural analysis (Lincoln, Mehl, Exner, Lindenmeyer, & Rief, 2010). I

worked in virtual teams for approximately 7 years before beginning my doctoral studies.

This experience provided a rich foundation and knowledge base regarding the topic under

study. I also understand the ramifications as the researcher of this study, in that my

experiences may have influenced the data analysis. Greene (2014) indicated a

researcher’s experience might influence a study; therefore, I kept an open mind to address

my feelings, ethics, and principles using a reflective journal.

The journaling process in relation to an exploratory case study involves recording

actions and feelings. The practice of reflective journaling serves as an opportunity to

reflect on personal principles and assumptions. During both data collection and analysis, I

recorded my personal experiences, principles, and opinions. Qualitative researchers

maintain a reflective journal as a way of reducing the possibility of bias (Lincoln et al.,

2010). Ortlipp (2008) indicated that rather than trying to control the values of a

researcher’s thoughts, values, and assumptions, it is best to use a method of journaling

and bracketing to “consciously acknowledge” (p. 695) rather than to ignore. The research

journal and bracketing process assisted in ensuring the validity and accuracy of the

research findings.

Bracketing is a technique in which researchers keep data aligned in a matrix to

maintain themes and patterns, which creates trustworthiness and validity in the research

process. By using a reflective journal and by bracketing the data through a matrix system,

I was able to identify the thematic patterns supported by the literature and not through the

motivation of bias, keeping to the reflective process of bringing the unconscious into the

conscious and thus gaining a true interpretation of the research (see Justus, 2017; Ortlipp,

2008). Through journaling and bracketing procedures, researchers can remain self-aware

of feelings, ethical issues, and principles that arise in the research process.

Methodology

The population was virtual team leaders from various government agencies.

Virtual leaders working with and leading teams in the competitive global market are

specialized, skilled professionals (Colomo-Palacios, Casado-Lumbreras, Soto-Acosta,

García-Peñalvo, & Tovar, 2014). The population for this exploratory case study consisted

of highly skilled professionals working in government agencies. Moretti and Thulin

(2013) indicated that the unique skills and knowledge acquired by highly skilled

professionals are usually effective within decision-making teams. Further refinement of

the target population led to selecting virtual team leaders who had led government virtual

teams for at least 5 years. This criterion provided some assurance that these government

virtual leaders had formed attitudes and perceptions toward their respective agencies in

response to organizational policy, procedures, and standards for the virtual environment.

All the participants were professionals who were members of professional

association listings on LinkedIn (Performance Based Budget for Government, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Researchers, Federally Employed Women

(FEW), American Society for Military Comptrollers, and American Associated Budget,

Programming Analysis, and U.S. Air Force Association) that totaled 48,887 individuals.

Criteria for inclusion were knowledge and experience in virtual teams and project

delivery. Most members of these groups hold high-ranked titles (i.e., lead budget officer,

director, program analyst, financial officer, and researchers) and represent organizations

with multiple national and international facilities within the government.

Such positions require the collaboration of geographically dispersed individuals

with global organizational goals. The LinkedIn associations serve as platforms for

government professionals to network, discuss issues, search for talent, and attend world

summits. Wright (2012) successfully conducted a correlational leadership study among

175 project managers from 39 countries using experts found on groups within LinkedIn,

with significantly correlated results. The inclusion criteria included members who

belonged to highly skilled decision-making virtual teams, and all members used virtual

methods as the primary source of interaction with other team members at the time of the

study. A minimum of 5 years of experience was necessary to ensure only highly skilled

professionals participated. Excluded individuals included lower level employees in

secretarial, non-decision-making positions and who were not members of a team.

Professionals who never collaborated virtually outside of the physical workplace were

also not able to be part of the sample. Further refinement of the target population led to

the selection of virtual team leaders who had not only led government virtual teams for at

least 5 years, but had extensive knowledge and substantive experience on all the issues

under investigation in this study.

In this exploratory case study, purposeful sampling served as a way of recruiting

the participant pool. Purposeful convenience sampling is a method used to gain a target

sample size (Bryman, 2015; Patton, 2002; Thomas, G. 2015; Yin, 2014). The 11

government virtual team leaders obtained via purposeful sampling on LinkedIn met the

minimum sample size required based on response rates in previous studies (Cho &

Dansereau, 2010; Morris & Venkatesh, 2010; Nadiri & Tanova, 2010; Walumbwa et al.,

2011; Walter & Bruch, 2010). I conducted an online survey among highly skilled

professionals on LinkedIn, some researchers have been able to reach a 61% response rate;

however, other reports indicated the response rate in studies involving highly skilled

professionals is an average of 33% (Grubb & Begel, 2012; Wright, 2012). Researchers’

hard work, dedication, and skill help to determine the successful outcome of a research

project.

Purposeful convenience sampling is the preferred method when the opportunity is

present and yields a fair sample (Bryman, 2015, p. 189). The goal was to approach the

administrators of six groups on LinkedIn with a request to post to all the members and

request for the government associationed participants to take the questionnaire through

SurveyMonkey. The groups were all government-based LinkedIn professional

association listings (Performance Based Budget for Government, National Oceanic

Atmospheric Administration Researchers, Federally Employed Women (FEW),

American Society for Military Comptrollers, and American Associated Budget,

Programming Analysis, U.S. Air Force Association) and totaled 48,887 members. The

recruitment phase did not require the snowball method to achieve the number of

government virtual team leaders required to complete the participant pool. Snowballing is

a strategy the researcher may use to obtain or complete a participant pool (Bryman,

2015). However, for this exploratory case, the purposeful convenience method produced

the target of 11 government virtual team leaders, within the first phase of data collection

to complete the participant pool.

I received participants through an informational letter that included the informed

consent and the terms of the study. Yin (2014) suggested researchers use multiple sources

of data and indicated 11 is an appropriate sample size for exploratory case studies.

Participants received information on the withdrawal process, and the option to withdraw

was available (at all times) and without penalty. The letter included an explanation of the

minimal risks and the benefits of the research. Participants had an opportunity to review

firsthand knowledge; give their perceptions of challenges they face; and review their own

virtual team documents, logs, and recordings. To reduce any ethical or professional risk,

virtual leaders did not need to provide copies of the documents, logs, or recordings

reviewed.

Exploratory case studies have no one-size-fits-all method to know when data

collection is complete based on saturation and sample size. Guest, Bunce, and Johnson

(2006) noted that researchers agree on rules and principles of qualitative studies, such as

no new data, no new themes, no new coding, and the ability to replicate the study.

Researchers can attain data saturation with as few as six participants, and depending on

an exhaustive data collection, a researcher is within guidelines of saturation (Burmeister

& Aitken, 2012; Dibley, 2011; Guest et al., 2006). Dibley (2011) indicated the best way

to think of data is in terms of being rich, whereas Burmeister and Aitken (2012)

suggested thick as the size of the sample. The easiest way to differentiate between rich

and thick data is to think of rich as quality and thick as quantity. Thus, thick data refer to

a lot of data, whereas rich data refer to layers that are intricate and detailed.

Instrumentation

This exploratory case study involved collecting data regarding the challenges

government virtual leaders face using an open-ended questionnaire (see Appendix A)

designed for an exploratory case study and available via SurveyMonkey. As the

researcher, I was the primary instrument of data collection. The online questionnaire

included nine open-ended questions based on a study by Chrisentary and Barrett (2017)

designed specifically for virtual leaders. The goal of a questionnaire is to find common

themes and patterns. Furthermore, the questions in the questionnaire underwent review

by Chrisentary and Barrett on July 12, 2017. Chrisentary and Barrett granted permission

to use the questions for this exploratory case study (see Appendix C). I used the the

online questionnaire (see Appendix B) via SurveyMonkey.

The participants reviewed their own virtual team documents, logs, and recordings.

To reduce any ethical or professional risk, I did not ask virtual leaders to provide any

copies to me or to anyone else related to the study. The document review provided

firsthand knowledge within the questionnaire and supplied background information for

the checklist review process (see Appendix B). I used a reflective journal and notes to

assist in the triangulation method. Triangulated data collection was a proposal of both

Yin (2014) and Stake (1995). The SurveyMonkey questionnaire (see Appendix A)

consisted of structured open-ended questions developed after an extensive review of the

literature through a theory of constraint lens consisting of nine open-ended questions

developed by Chrisentary and Barrett (2017) for virtual leaders. Desper (2013) indicated

open-ended questions are an effective tool in qualitative research. The questionnaire

included nine questions (see Appendix A) used to explore the complexities of the

challenges explored in the analysis as the themes and patterns emerge. The researcher,

the online SurveyMonkey questionnaire, the reflective journal, and the checklist were the

primary instruments used in this case study.

Data Collection Procedures

Data collection included a SurveyMonkey questionnaire with open-ended

questions. Data collection is a process of providing questionnaires to government virtual

leaders through purposeful, convenience, and possibly snowball sampling (Stake 1995;

Yin, 2014). Yin (2014) noted that using multiple sources of data assists in triangulating

data, which can increase the reliability and validity of the information collected. Patton

(2002) indicated that the primary activity of a case study, which is contacting

participants, starts after a researcher identifies a research problem and develops the

research design plan. Sampling for the questionnaire process continued until recruiting

10–12 participants was complete. The study did not start until after receiving approval

100

from the Walden University Institutional Review Board and receiving participants’

consent via the e-mail survey link included in the instructions for the questionnaire.

Data Analysis

The data triangulated for the initial analysis were from questionnaires, the

reflective journal, and notes transcribed from the checklist. Yin (2014) suggested

researchers type all data into a Microsoft Word document and integrate the document into

the database as part of the triangulation process. The data analysis from the questionnaire

was interpretive, which meant there was no exact method to the task (Cohen, Manion, &

Morrison, 2007). However, Wilkinson (2000) contended that a data analysis plan serves

as a guide to assist the researcher in an audit trail. It was imperative to remain transparent

while investigating how virtual leaders in the government environment handle the

challenges of leading virtual teams and how these challenges affect project delivery.

Data analysis involved transcribing all data and using NVivo software to identify

themes and patterns that may address the challenges of virtual leaders. Data analysis also

involved importing all data from the reflective journal and my notes into NVivo to

identify any additional impacts from the challenges on the project deliverables. This

process allowed triangulation to take place. Yin (2014) indicated that case studies are

“empirical inquires of investigations into contemporary phenomena of real-world

context” (p. 16), and this study was consistent with Yin’s case study model. Virtual

leaders and project deliverables are an emerging technology, and studying individuals

who currently work in the profession is vital to the management field.

101

Participation identification and the security of the case study were paramount to

this study. It is important during research to replace participant names with aliases and

conceal participant identities during data transcription (Guthrie & McCracken, 2010).

During the exploratory case study, I concealed each participant’s identity and all hard

copies and the hard drive will remain in a locked cabinet; to include all data which will

remain in a secure file with a secure password. I will shred or erase and destroy the

research 5 years after this study is complete. Data labeling, and transcription occurred

after collecting the responses to each questionnaire using a word processing document.

Journal notes were labeled during the review of the questionnaire process to reflect on the

participants’ responses and any bias reflected.

Extra precautions in the case study assisted in preventing lost data. All documents

had a backup document to prevent loss due to file corruption and to ensure data integrity

(Bluhm, Harman, Lee, & Mitchell, 2011). Color codes served as identifiers for each

participant, and a flash drive served as an extra precaution to protect the integrity of the

data (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). Neuendorf (2016) noted emerging concepts of

existing literature improve internal validity and conceptual basis when developing a case

study. Capturing the emerging themes and patterns, triangulating the data, and ensuring

data saturation ensured a comprehensive case study.

Triangulation served to validate the data from the questionnaires, the reflective

journals, and the notes. Miles, Huberman, and Saldana (2014) indicated that researchers

establish validity in a case study when they focus on the research questions through

logical and rational procedures, seeking to maintain alignment. Yin (2014) suggested

102

through concentration of case studies alignment is preserved through research questions,

data collection instruments, and the data analysis techniques which gives way to validity.

Triangulation allows a holistic picture of the results to form. Tracy (2012) noted that

coding during research should include categories relevant to research problems, purpose

statements, research questions, and conceptual frameworks that direct literature. By using

a theory of constraint lens, researchers may be able to reveal patterns and themes that led

to challenges during project deliverables. However, Merriam (1998) indicated that it is

imperative for case study researchers to obtain participants’ feedback on the

interpretations of the questionnaires to validate the results and improve the internal

validity of the research. After the review and analysis of each questionnaire is complete,

each participant received the results in an e-mail, along with a request to ensure the

interpretations are valid, which may have improved the results.

The triangulation method became a source of validity in this exploratory case

study. Chrisentary and Barrett (2017) developed the questionnaire for virtual leaders.

Triangulation justifies and validates themes and patterns to establish the results in case

studies. Maxwell (2013) noted that to mitigate researcher bias, researchers should use a

reflective journal to increase internal validity. Participants will review firsthand

knowledge of their own virtual team documents, logs, and recordings from a checklist

provided. To reduce any ethical or professional risk, virtual leaders were not asked to

provide any copies to me or to anyone else related to this study. Using the triangulation

method will improve the internal validity of this study. The cross-checks of findings

allow for transparency, other researchers can use the cross-checks to replicate the

103

procedure, and the results may yield gaps that give way to a future focal component that

allows researchers, organizational leaders, virtual leaders, and employees the opportunity

to address the management field for future endeavors.

Issues of Trustworthiness

To ensure this study’s construct validity is sound, it was important to develop a

clear chain of evidence among the literature review findings, the questionnaire process,

and the final analysis procedures. Yin (2014) indicated that researchers use four types of

criteria to judge a study’s quality: construct validity, internal validity (credibility),

external validity (transferability), and dependability. A reflection journal documents bias,

which helps to ensure internal validity (credibility). Qualitative researchers who are able

to maintain a reflective journal as a way of reducing the possibility of bias can increase

internal validity (Lincoln et al., 2010). Participants reviewed their questionnaire inputs

via e-mail. Additionally, the patterns and themes that emerge as a result of the coding use

a theory of constraint lens (Goldratt, 1990) and from the participants’ responses

strengthened the study’s internal validity (Yin, 2014), which helped develop the

exploratory case study.

Triangulating the questionnaires, the personal reflective journal and notes, and a

checklist further strengthened this exploratory case study’s internal validity. By

establishing external validity using the components of the theoretical framework

identified in the literature review to compare shared outcomes (Goldratt, 1990; Yin,

2014) and crosswalking participants’ experiences triangulation is established (Stake

1999; Yin, 2014). Researchers may be able to replicate a case study in future case studies

104

with variance among participants and their experiences to achieve transferability of the

findings (Thomas, 2015; Yin, 2014) to other organizational settings. Reliability, or

dependability, in case studies, can be challenging to achieve, as each case study is unique

(Huberman & Miles, 2002; Thomas, 2015). In this case study on government virtual team

leaders, I sought dependability by ensuring the clear documentation of data collection

procedures and other operations so that the process is repeatable in the future, even if the

outcomes are unlikely to yield the same results due to participant variance (Yin, 2014).

These processes provide clarification and contribute to clear audit trails to ensure

oversight. Ensuring confirmability, or objectivity, involves researchers acknowledging

their experience to ensure transparency and to avoid bias.

Researchers use journaling and bracketing procedures to remain self-aware of

feelings. Ortlipp (2008) indicated that rather than trying to control the values of a

researcher’s thoughts, values, and assumptions, it is best to use a method of journaling

and bracketing. Through maintaining a reflective journal and creating a bracketing

matrix, a researcher can support the literature. The research journal and bracketing

process can help ensure the trustworthiness, validity, and accuracy of research findings.

Ethical Protection of Research Participants

This exploratory case study only included participants who voluntarily agreed to

respond. To ensure the fulfillment of this goal, every participant received a consent letter

that ascertained voluntary participation in the questionnaire. The participants were able to

provide consent by clicking on the questionnaire link and by completing the survey via

105

SurveyMonkey. As noted in the consent letter participants were able to opt out from the

questionnaire at any time if they wished.

I always ensured the anonymity and privacy of the participants. No individual

responses will be available to the public. I will report and publish only general findings

based on the analysis and summary of all the data. In the consent letter, I included

additional assurances that this is academic research and that I used the participants’

responses only for academic purposes. I protected the privacy of all respondents by not

revealing the data to any third party. I explained participants’ anonymity in this case

study and the ways I will value their privacy, and I also explained how I employed a

coding framework so that no third party could use the reported results to identify the

details of any participant, and I ensured all data collected from the questionnaires will

remain saved on a secured password-protected personal computer for at least 5 years to

await further analysis.

Summary

The purpose of this case study was to explore the challenges for virtual leaders in

the government environment that can affect project delivery. The research questions

served as a guide to, and aligned with, the questionnaire used in the SurveyMonkey

research project. Data collection will consist of triangulating the questionnaires, the

personal reflective journal, and notes from a checklist. Triangulation helped to establish

the validity of the results of this case study. Cross checking the findings showed that

transparency helps other researchers to replicate the procedures. This research yielded

gaps and other focal points that give way to a future that allows researchers,

106

organizational leaders, virtual leaders, employees, and opportunities to address the

management field for future research endeavors.

107

Chapter 4: Results

The purpose of this exploratory case study was to examine the challenges

confroning virtual leaders in the government environment. The rapid growth in

technology in virtual workplaces has caused organizational leaders to concentrate on

infrastructure and technology; however, the rapid growth also challenges virtual leaders

and project deliverables. I developed the research questions to focus on the challenges

faced by virtual team leaders while maintaining roles and responsibilities to successfully

complete a project deliverable. Chapter 4 includes detailed descriptions of the case study,

the data collection methods, and the data analysis technique. Chapter 4 also includes the

results of my data analysis and a discussion of how I used the findings to answer the

research questions.

Demographics

I invited members of all six government LinkedIn associations (Performance

Based Budget for Government, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration

Researchers, Federally Employed Women (FEW), American Society for Military

Comptrollers, American Associated Budget, and U.S. Air Force Association) to

participate in the study. The survey was available via SurveyMonkey for 3 weeks, and

although seven people attempted to complete the online survey, only six respondents

fully completed the survey. During the fourth week, an additional person completed the

survey. As the researcher, I monitored the data collection process daily, and I maintained

a journal to keep track of my personal thoughts, feelings, and attitudes toward the case

study. It took a total of 5 months before receiving 11 participants for the exploratory case

108

study to examine the challenges confroning virtual leaders in the government

environment.

Data Collection

To ensure visibility and achieve the required sample size, I reposted the survey

invitation to the top of the LinkedIn government association pages weekly. Additionally,

I monitored the comment boxes and conversed with members asking questions about my

study, about the process, and about Walden University in each group. Data collection

took place at the end of each day throughout February–April 2018.

As the lead instrument and sole researcher, I decided to triple my LinkedIn

connections to maximize my visibility on LinkedIn by marketing my personal LinkedIn

page. The goal was to direct more traffic to the survey. As I connected with new

LinkedIn associates, I also connected them to the survey request at the top of each group

association page. I worked to ensure the number of my LinkedIn connections tripled by

the end of May 2018. The primary goal in this effort was to ensure that 10–12

participants from the six government group LinkedIn associations completed the survey

by the beginning of June 2018.

I collected data from 11 purposefully selected participants via a SurveyMonkey

questionnaire with open-ended questions. Yin (2014) noted that using multiple sources of

data assists in triangulating data and can increase the reliability and validity of the

information collected. I continued the sampling process until I recruited 11 participants. I

did not begin the case study until after I received approval from the Walden University

109

Institutional Review Board (01-23-18-0457066) and after receiving participants’ consent

via the e-mail survey link included in the instructions for the questionnaire.

Issues of Trustworthiness

Credibility

A reflection journal supports internal credibility by documenting bias. Qualitative

researchers who maintain a reflective journal may reduce the possibility of bias and

increase internal validity (Lincoln et al., 2010). The reflective journaling process in an

exploratory case study serves as an opportunity to reflect on personal principles and

assumptions. Personal experience I had in virtual teams before this case study began

provided a rich foundation and knowledge base regarding this topic. However, as the

researcher in this exploratory case study, I understood that my experiences had the

potential to influence the data analysis. To maintain awareness of such potential

influence, I documented in a reflective journal throughout the research process.

Creditability involves more than just using a reflective journal. Simon and Goes

(2013) indicated that participants should check data for verification of information. In

this case study, participants were able to check the individual questionnaire before

submission through SurveyMonkey. The online questionnaire included a list of nine

open-ended questions based on a study by Chrisentary and Barrett (2017) designed

specifically for virtual leaders. I used the questionnaire’s nine questions (see Appendix

A) to explore the complexities of participants’ leadership challenges and to gather useful

data that I could organized into themes and patterns. The researcher, the online

110

SurveyMonkey questionnaire, and the reflective journal were the primary instruments

used in this case study.

Transferability

Researchers may apply findings in a completed case study to another

environment. Yin (2014) indicated that when researchers document case study

procedures and limitations, other researchers can replicate the study and may receive

similar results by following the same procedures. Government virtual leaders completed

this case study; therefore, the findings may be transferrable to virtual leaders in other

settings. The participants were all professionals who work as government employees and

lead virtual teams facing challenges with projects. I chose participants who work in the

management-business field so that replicability and transferability would interconnect.

Dependability

In this case study on government virtual team leaders, dependability was vital. As

the researcher, I ensured the clear documentation of data collection procedures and other

operations so that the processes are repeatable in the future. Yin (2014) noted that even if

the outcomes are unlikely to yield the same results due to participant variance, it is

important to be able to repeat the procedures in the future. Additionally, for

dependability, qualitative research may include a second coder to analyze data when

necessary (Given, 2008). This case study required no extra levels of coding, there were

no significant changes, and the questionnaire was easy to comprehend. Additionally, I

followed an efficient process for data collection.

111

Confirmability

This study involved collecting research data from virtual leaders who worked in

government environments and analyzing their perspectives, documenting data collection,

and reviewing other related case studies and narratives. The population in this study was

employees from government-based agencies who have held virtual team positions for at

least 5 years. The primary focus was on government virtual team collaborators who had

the knowledge and skill sets that allowed for open dialogue on the topics of virtual teams,

competency, training, and project delivery. An exploratory case study is a comprehensive

way to address the questions why and how in relation to virtual communication, trust,

leadership, and project deliverables.

Study Results

I recruited study participants through LinkedIn government association groups. In

the study, virtual leader participants completed a research questionnaire. Qualitative case

study data analysis was suitable exploring the skills and attributes required for leadership

development and project deliverables for virtual teams. The study consisted of an

exploratory questionnaire completed by 11 virtual leaders with knowledge and expertise

in virtual team environments. Individuals invited to participate in the research were

virtual leaders in government agencies who are professionals and who worked in virtual

environments for at least 5 years.

The virtual environment is constantly changing (Jacob & McClelland, 2001), and

it is vital to gain knowledge and data from the field from those working in it to

comprehend the skills, attributes, and behavioral characteristics required to effectively

112

lead virtual teams. When participants were asked to respond to a question about if you are

willing to volunteer for a check-list review (containing an additional 5 questions) and at

no time will you have to turn in your personal emails, agenda, logs, virtual

communications, these items are to be reviewed by you through a checklist to assist you

as a reminder of how you and your virtual teams communicate and mitigate challenges as

an additional section of the questionnaire, six replied yes and five replied no. When

participants were asked about their position and title, two (18%) responded government

support specialists, one was a program developer (9%), and the others (73%) held

different positions and titles within diverse government agencies. The participants had led

projects for 5-10 years. See Table 2 for a summary of demographic information regarding

the research participants.

113

Table 2

Data of Participants in Case Study

Participant

Government

position

Leadership

style

Communication with

team members

Perception of trust

in organization,

agency, and team

1 IT management Empowerment E-mail, Instant

Messenger

Fair

2 President NGO

(retired

military)

Self-directed/

project goals

E-mail; regular

conference calls

Distrust; lack of

control; intimated

by lack of expertise

3 NCOIC Influential/

inspirational

Transparent, direct;

no sugarcoating

Strong

4 EOD team

leader

Basic/equal

voice among

all

Every voice counts Equal - one voice

5 Program

development

Help guide

conversation

Telecon; e-mail Complete

6 Program analyst Consensus E-mail; face-to-face Limited

7 Grants

management

specialist

Inclusive;

participatory

E-mail; phone if

necessary

Trust in-house; less

trust with other

bureaus

8 Fighter pilot Assess team/

buy-in/proceed

Skype; e-mail; text;

telecom

Trust; timeliness,

eye contact

9 Service support

specialist

Facilitator Report incidents/

successes after

sessions; collaborate

on how to minimize

issues

Positive

10 Service support

specialist

Collaborator E-mail Positive

11 Logistics

technician

Collaborative;

flexible

Telecon; e-mail;

videoconference

Perception is

reality; trust is key

Note. This information is in the participants’ complete response format

114

The overarching research question for this study was as follows: How do

government virtual team leaders describe the manner in which challenges negatively

affect project delivery? The four main themes that emerged from the analysis of the data

obtained from the responses to the questionnaire were as follows: (a) challenges of

communication, (b) trust, (c) organization, and (d) a need for additional collaboration

within the organization. After I completed data collection, I coded the participants’

responses by using NVivo to find themes and patterns. Therefore, Question 1 (Q1)

represented the thematic analysis, researchers can pinpoint patterns (Vaismoradi, M.,

Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. 201). I used semistructured questions and maintained a

journal throughout the process to ensure an in-depth understanding of the perspectives on

effective leadership strategies. The chosen participants were professional government

employees who had experience as virtual leaders.

The second overarching question was as follows: What are virtual leaders doing

to overcome the challenges associated with effective project delivery? The themes that

developed for Question 2 (Q2) from the analysis of the data obtained from the responses

to the questionnaire were (a) collaborations, (b) trust, and (c) trained virtual facilitators.

The participants’ responses to the questionnaire supported the theory of constraints,

which addressed virtual leaders who continue to struggle to complete project deliverables

due to challenges. Goldratt (1990) indicated that, whether acknowledged or not, if

challenges are properly identified, organizational leaders can manage constraints that

may create significant improvements for project deliverables.

115

In Figure 1, participants responded to a checklist items with the number of virtual

projects in category (a) timelines: generally, how long your timelines last for virtual

projects; (b) number of virtual projects that are currently outstanding; (c) number of

successful virtual projects to date and number of overdue projects; and (d) other. Those

who had dedicated timelines, comprised of 20% of the population, and the number of

outstanding projects also equated to 20%. The participants indicated that 40% of their

virtual projects were successful and there were no overdue projects. Additionally, the

participants noted that 20% of projects were classified as other (suggesting that some

may be cancelled or pending further information—in planning stages).

Figure 1. Project timelines.

Participants responded to virtual meetings as those that functioned with

communication technologies that used GoToMeeting, WebX, or Skype 50% of the time,

which indicated that virtual leaders are indeed virtual and use the technology

infrastructure of their organizations. In Table 3, the partcipants’ response aligned with

116

data that indicated face-to-face meetings are still relevant (33.33%) and are necessary to

complete some projects and that indicated e-mail is a solid foundation for communication

(16.67%).

Table 3

Meeting—Communication

Participant Answer Choices Responses

1 Email Communication 16.67%

2 Agenda for meetings 0.00%

3 Type Minutes in Meetings/Distribute after each meeting 0.00%

4 GoToMeetings/WebX/Skype – Teleconferences 50.00%

5 Chat- in-between meetings 0.00%

6 Social chatting to build trust/relationships 0.00%

7 Face-to-Face meeting (quarterly/or yearly) 33.33%

Furthermore, participants responded to all other types of communication used by

the virtual team to communication during projects. Table 4 indicated that 50% percent of

the time, the teams relied on agendas from the meeting to reiterate information and to

stay on task, and 50% of the time examples are shared among the team via a face-to-face

meeting or via e-mail. Table 4 shows no virtual leaders or teams in this demographic

noted the use of repositories or recordings for checks and balances or transparency.

Table 4

Communication (During Project)

Answer

Choices Responses

Agenda

Example

Repositories

Recordings

50%

117

The final three open-ended questions about training as a virtual leader, standard

operation procedures, and open-ended information on positive impacts for virtual leaders

were completed with n/a by all participants.

Summary

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore and gain knowledge of

challenges for virtual leadership that may occur in project delivery. Results showed that,

among virtual leaders, there was a pattern of communication and trust as a commonality.

Another theme was the need for more collaboration and possible requirements for virtual

facilitators. Therefore, the conclusion was that virtual team leaders who are working on

project deliverables tend to perceive organization as more effective when communication

and trust is high, as well as when the agency is collaborating among departments and if

the virtual team uses a trained facilitator with each virtual meeting. Trained virtual

facilitators is considered an asset and can assist with communication and trust challenges

for virtual meetings.

Chapter 5: Discussions, Conclusion, and Recommendations

Overview

The purpose of this qualitative exploratory case study was to explore the

challenges confronting virtual leaders in the government environment that can affect

project delivery. The problem was that the virtual skills and competencies of leaders lag

behind technological transformations in the business world. Typically, when leaders

adopt any change in a workplace, a positive or negative disruption occurs. Researchers

118

have focused on organizational leaders’ attempts at responding to changes in the

infrastructure technology; however, these attempts by most researchers have found

unproductive a continual lag of leadership competencies in virtual teams (Chang et al.,

2014). It is essential for virtual leaders to gain competencies in virtual knowledge,

training, and resources, all of which affect successful project delivery.

Chapter 4 included details of the themes, patterns, and results I obtained from the

responses to the questionnaire. Chapter 5 contains the results of the study, discussions of

the study’s limitations and implications for social change, recommendations for further

study, and conclusions. Chapter 5 also includes a discussion of my answers to the

research questions. Data collection involved using a SurveyMonkey questionnaire

answered by 11 participants recruited via LinkedIn. I identified four theme and patterns

for virtual leaders in the results. Specifically, virtual leaders faced challenges associated

with (a) communication, (b) trust, (c) organization, and (d) the need for additional

collaboration within organizations. Additionally, data showed that 50% of the virtual

teams relied on agendas from virtual meetings to reiterate information and 50% of the

time the teams use examples shared in face-to-face meetings or through group e-mails to

explain issues in more detail.

Interpretation of the Results

The participants were 11 government employees from government-based

LinkedIn professional association listings that totaled 48,887 members (Performance

Based Budget for Government, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration

Researchers, Federally Employed Women [FEW], American Society for Military

119

Comptrollers, and American Associated Budget, Programming Analysis, and U.S. Air

Force Association). I triangulated questionnaire data by using a reflective journal, open-

ended questions, and other case studies.

Research Subquestion1

Research Subquestion 1 was as follows: How do government virtual team leaders

describe the manner in which challenges negatively affect project delivery? To address

this question, I used participants’ responses to nine open-ended questions designed

specifically for virtual leaders. The open-ended questions emphasized leadership style,

communication with team members, the development of trust, and challenges virtual

team members have to successfully implementing a project. The primary theme for

virtual leaders in this exploratory case study was communication, building trust,

collaboration, and leadership emergent. Additionally, recommendations made by the

experienced virtual leader participants indicated that, being consistent through e-mail,

examples in e-mails, face-to-face meetings, and video chats leads to successful project

deliverables.

Figure 2. Themes & Patterns

120

Most notably, the participants noted that to be effective and efficient, virtual

teams need a fully trained virtual facilitator. The 21st-century business world is becoming

aware of the requirements for virtual team leaders, and it is important for leaders to adapt

and become proficient in virtual effectiveness (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Fan et al., 2014;

Hoch & Kozlowski, 2012; Zaugg & Davies, 2013). Researchers have consistentely

shown communication, trust, and virtual leadership to be the leading obstacles to virtual

collaboration for leaders and teams (Daim et al., 2012; Iorio & Taylor, 2015; Lockwood,

2015). As technology and virtual leaders continue to move forward, it is essential to

address their core competencies and ensure successful project deliverables.

Research Subquestion 2

Research Subquestion 2 was as follows: What are virtual leaders doing to

overcome the challenges associated with effective project delivery? Several of the nine

open-ended questions included a focus on leadership style, communication with team

members, and perception of trust in organizations. In participants’ responses, I identified

the predominant themes and patterns of trust, collaboration, and trained facilitators.

Virtual leaders discussed working inclusively, developing collaborative teams, and to

remaining flexible. Additionally, virtual leaders flagged the need to continue to

communicate with team members throughout projects via e-mail, telecommunications,

and video chat. The vital component of a virtual team is trust. Researchers continue to

investigate leadership and trust to address the challenging factors of virtual collaborations

that affect project delivery (Daim et al., 2012; Iorio & Taylor, 2015; Jarvenpaa, & Leider,

121

1999; Lockwood, 2015). Furthermore, management research must keep pace with

communication technology (Aguinis & Edwards, 2014). Organizational leaders must find

new ways to address the challenges of training and developing competencies from a

virtual perspective while focusing on the key risks to project delivery.

Limitation

The first limitation of this exploratory case study was the theoretical approach I

used. Even though a constraints lens allows for management fields to obtain quality

improvements in real time, the system improvement philosophy (theory of constraint

lens) might be too stringent for an exploratory case review. To obtain context-rich data

on the impact of virtual leadership and the effects on organizational productivity, process,

and communication, some reasearchers might deem a mixed-method as a more

appropriate.

A second limitation involved using government employees for the participant

pool. A broader participant pool involving other organizations may have produced a

different result. Finally, this case study contains data that represented only a single

questionnaire with open-ended questions; to obtain different results, a researcher may use

another instrument to observe and interview virtual leaders, which may lead to more in-

depth material.

Recommendations

In this case study, my intent was to provide virtual leaders with information that

will improve project deliverables. The virtual leaders in government who participanted in

this study have served as a beneficial information resource for those seeking to

122

understand future management field success. The collected information gave valuable

insight into virtual leadership and project deliverables. Future researchers may want to

replicate this study and explore improvements to address the challenges of

communication and team trust. The findings indicated that facilitators contribute to

communication, build trust in virtual meetings, and assist with the project deliverables;

further studies should include research in this area. This study provided a base, but more

research is necessary on this subject, possibly with use of a different instrument.

Research exists on virtual leadership, but there is little research regarding trained

facilitators who contribute to virtual communication and project deliverables. A future

researcher could focus on how virtual leadership (trained facilitators) can influence

performance and project deliverables. Recommendations for research also include

replicating this study in a non-governmental business setting.

Implications

The information from this study may affect social change by providing virtual

leaders with critical information required to make more knowledgeable decisions in 21st-

century workplaces. The case study has practical implications for organizational leaders

interested in supporting the adoption of new strategies to build communicative, trusting,

and productive virtual teams that can improve project deliverables. The findings of the

case study show the patterns and themes of communication and trust toinclude

collaboration and virtual facilitators for positive impacts toward successful virtual

leadership.

123

The information in this case study contributes to the management field by

providing organizational leaders the daily perceptives of virtual leaders regarding

challenges and project deliverables. The results of this exploratory case study may help

organizational leaders understand the perspectives of their employees and therefore

enable future development of policies and procedures to guide virtual leaders and project

deliverables.

Summary and Conclusion

This exploratory case study adds to the body of knowledge in the management

field and provides information for organizational leaders that may be useful in examining

the challenges confronting virtual leaders and project deliverables. The research problem

led me to explore how the virtual skills and competencies of leaders lag behind the

expanding technological business world. The study involved exploring the challenges

that virtual leaders face with knowledge, trust, training, and resources, all of which

adversely impact project delivery.

A well-trained and educated virtual leader will be able to address virtual teams,

build trust, and develop complex opportunities throughout successful projects.

Organizational leaders struggle to match the pace of technology (Aguinis & Edwards,

2014; Lee, 2013; Zofi, 2012). Haselberger (2016) indicated virtual team leaders develop

through experience, and it is essential to understand that virtual leaders deal with

interpersonal challenges and issues with projects over time. Researchers will continue to

seek the right balance for virtual competencies and project deliverables until

124

organizational leaders learn to scale up to the challenges for virtual leaders and focus on

virtual competencies and project delivery delays.

My goal in this study was to understand challenges affecting project deliverables

as understood by virtual leaders. This study fills a gap in the literature by examining the

challenges of virtual communication, trust, emergent leadership, and project delivery.

The results may lead to improvements in the skills, competencies, and developments of

virtual team collaborations and leadership training. Hamersly and Land (2015) suggested

that organizational leaders create policies for virtual communities and focus on

procedures when establishing the infrastructure for virtual leaders. This exploratory case

study included information with patterns and themes that indicated a need for further

studies on virtual leadership and project deliverables.

125

References

Aguinis, H., & Edwards, J. R. (2014). Methodological wishes for the next decade and

how to make wishes come true. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 143-174.

doi:10.1111/joms.12058

Albanese, R. (1994). Team-building process: Key to better project results. Journal of

Management in Engineering, 10, 36-44. doi:10.1061/(asce)9742-

597x(1994)10:6(36)

Andressen, P., Konradt, U., & Neck, C. P. (2012). The relation between self-leadership

and transformational leadership: Competing models and the moderating role of

virtuality. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19, 68-82.

doi:10.1177/1548051811425047

Anjanee, S., Neera, J., & Shoma, M. (2010). Leadership dimensions and challenges in the

new millennium. Advances in Management, 3, 18-24.

https://ideas.repec.org/a/mgn/journl/v3y2010i3a3.html

Ardichvili, A., Natt och Dag, K., & Manderscheid, S. (2016). Leadership development

current and emerging models and practices. Advances in Developing Human

Resources, 18(3) 275-285. doi:10.1177/1523422316645506.

Arnold, K. A., & Loughlin, C. (2013). Integrating transformational and participative

versus directive leadership theories: Examining intellectual stimulation in male

and female leaders across three contexts. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 34, 67-84. doi:10.1108/01437731311289974

126

Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new

directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 23, 383-400. doi:10.1002/job.144

Bass, M. M. (1990) Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: A survey of theory in

research. New York, NY: Harper.

Battistella, C., Annarelli, A., & Nonino, F. (2015, September 3-4). Exploring the impact

of organizational and working models, incentives and collaboration strategies on

innovation development in online communities of practices. Paper presented at the

16th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Udine, Italy.

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2002). A typology of virtual teams implications for

effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27, 14-49.

doi:10.1002/bltj.2099

Berry, G. R. (2011). Enhancing effectiveness on virtual teams: Understanding why

traditional team skills are insufficient. Journal of Business Communication, 48, 1-

23. doi:10.1177/0021943610397270

Bluhm, D. J., Harman, W., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Qualitative research in

management: A decade of progress. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1866-

1891. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00972.x

Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Burmeister, E., & Aitken, L. M. (2012). Sample size: How many is enough? Australian

Critical Care, 25, 271-274. doi:10.1016/j.aucc.2012.07.002

127

Chang, H. H., Chuang, S. S., & Chao, S. H. (2011). Determinants of cultural adaptation,

communication quality, and trust in virtual teams' performance. Total Quality

Management, 22, 305-329. doi:10.1080/14783363.2012.704274

Charbonnier-Voirin, A., El Akremi, A., & Vandenberghe, C. (2010). A multilevel model

of transformational leadership and adaptive performance and the moderating role

of climate for innovation. Group & Organization Management, 35, 699-726.

doi:10.1177/1059601110390833

Charlier, S. D., Stewart, G. L., Greco, L. M., & Reeves, C. J. (2016). Emergent

leadership in virtual teams: A multilevel investigation of individual

communication and team dispersion antecedents. Leadership Quarterly, 27, 745-

764. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.05.002

Cho, J., & Dansereau, F. (2010). Are transformational leaders fair? A multi-level study of

transformational leadership, justice perceptions, and organizational citizenship

behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 409-421. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.006

Chrisentary, J., & Barrett, D. (2017). An exploration of leadership in virtual communities

of practice. Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and Management

Solutions In Emerging Economies, 20(77), 25-34. doi:107595/management.fon

.2015.0027

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Retrieved

from: http://gtu.ge/Agro-Lib/RESEARCH%20METHOD%20COHEN%20ok.pdf

Colomo-Palacios, R., Casado-Lumbreras, C., Soto-Acosta, P., García-Peñalvo, F. J., &

Tovar, E. (2014). Project managers in global software development teams: A

128

study of the effects on productivity and performance. Software Quality Journal,

22, 3-19. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/journal/volumesAndIssues

/11219

Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for

dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346-371.

doi:10.1287/orsc.12.3.346.10098

Crisp, C. B., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2015). Swift trust in global virtual teams. Journal of

Personnel Psychology 12, 45-56. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000075

Crosby, C., & Zlevor, G. (2010). Johnson & Johnson's transformational leadership

program prepares quality leaders for global challenges. Global Buisness and

Organizational Excellence, 29(2), 19-25. doi:10.1002/joe.20305

Crum, D. J. (2000). Leadership support for innovation: A survey of United States Navy

senior executives (Doctoral dissertation). (ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

database).

Daim, T. U., Ha, A., Reutiman, S., Hughes, B., Pathak, U., Bynum, W., & Bhatla, A.

(2012). Exploring the communication breakdown in global virtual teams.

International Journal of Project Management, 30, 199-212.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.06.004

Deal, J. J. (2007). Retiring the generation gap. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

de Jesus Pacheco, D. A. (2015). TOC, lean and Six Sigma: The missing link to increase

productivity? African Journal of Business Management, 9(12), 513-520.

doi:10.5897/ajbm2014.7672

129

Denison, M. B., Banks, D., Bosley, E., Hyduke, B., James, K., Lefkowitz, E., . . . Ward,

B. (2014). Effective engagement strategies for an increasingly dispersed

workforce. Public Manager, 43(3), 62. doi:10.1108/ict-08-2015-0056

DePaoli, D., & Ropo, A. (2015). Open plan offices–the response to leadership challenges

of virtual project work? Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 17, 63-74.

doi:10.1108/jcre-08-2014-0020

Derven, M. (2016). Four drivers to enhance global virtual teams. Industrial and

Commercial Training, 48, 1-8. https://emeraldinsight.com/loi/ict

Dibley, L. (2011). Analyzing narrative data using McCormack’s lenses. Nurse

Researcher, 8(3), 13-19. Retrieved from

http://nurseresearcher.rcnpublishing.co.uk/

Eisenberg, J., Gibbs, J. L., & Erhardt, N. (2016). The role of vertical and shared

leadership in virtual team collaboration. In Strategic management and leadership

for systems development in virtual spaces (pp. 22-42). Orono, ME. IGI Global.

Eissa, G., Fox, C., Webster, B. D., & Kim, J. (2012). A framework for leader

effectiveness in virtual teams. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics,

9(2), 11-22. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/journal/1913-

8059_Journal_of_Leadership_Accountability_and_Ethics. http://www.na-

businesspress.com/JLAE/jlaescholar.html

Eubanks, D. L., Palanski, M., Olabisi, J., Joinson, A., & Dove, J. (2016). Team dynamics

in virtual, partially distributed teams: optimal role fulfillment. Computers in

Human Behavior, 61, 556-568. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.035

130

Fan, K. T., Chen, Y. H., Wang, C. W., & Chen, M. (2014). E-leadership effectiveness in

virtual teams: Motivating language perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems,

114, 421-437. doi:10/1108/imds-07-2013-0294

Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., & Hein,

M. B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A

synthesis and functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 245-287.

doi:10/1016/1048-9843(91)90016-u

Floricel, S., Michela, J. L., & Piperca, S. (2016). Complexity, uncertainty-reduction

strategies, and project performance. International Journal of Project

Management, 34, 1360-1383. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.11.007

Fuerth, L. S., & Faber, E. M. (2012). Anticipatory governance practical upgrades:

Equipping the executive branch to cope with increasing speed and complexity of

major challenges. doi:10.1108/14636680910982412

Germain, M. L., & McGuire, D. (2014). The role of swift 11t111r1ust in virtual teams

and implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing

Human Resources, 16, 356-370. doi:10.1177/1523422314532097

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.

doi:10.2189/asqu.51.3.451

131

Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M., Donnelly, J. H., & Konopaske, R. (2009).

Organizations: Behavior, structure, process (13th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-

Hill.

Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Young, N. C. J., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015).

Virtual teams research 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of

Management, 41, 1313-1337. doi:10.1177/0149206314559946

Goldratt, E. M. (1990). Theory of constraints: What is 1 thing called the theory of

constraints and how should it be implemented.

doi:10.1007/springerreference_6243

Greene, M. J. (2014). On the inside looking in: Methodological insights and challenges in

conducting qualitative insider research. Qualitative Report, 19(29), 1-13.

doi:10.1057/978-1-137-54642-5_14

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An

experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18, 59-82.

doi:10.1177/1525822X05279903

Guzman, J. G., Ramos, J. S., Seco, A. A., & Esteban, A. S. (2010). How to get mature

global virtual teams: A framework to improve team process management in

distributed software teams. Software Quality Journal, 18, 409-435.

doi:10.1007/s11219-010-9096-5

Hamersly, B., & Land, D. (2015). Building productivity in virtual project teams. Revista

de Gestão e Projetos, 6, 1. doi:10.5585/gep.v6i1.305

132

Hampton, S. E., Halpern, B. S., Winter, M., Balch, J. K., Parker, J. N., Baron, J. S., . . . &

Specht, A. (2017). Best practices for virtual participation in meetings:

Experiences from synthesis centers. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America,

98, 57-63. doi:10.1002/bes2.1290

Hanna, P. (2012). Using internet technologies (such as Skype) as a research medium: A

research note. Qualitative Research, 12, 239-242.

http://journals.sagepub.com/home/qrj

Hanson, D., Ward, C., & Chin, P. (2012). Leading virtual teams across national and

cultural boundaries. International Leadership Journal, 13, 3-16. Retrieved from

http://tesc.innersync.com/

Hardy-Vallee, B. (2012). The cost of bad project management. Retrieved from

http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/152429/cost-bad-project-management.

aspx

Haselberger, D. (2016). A literature-based framework of performance-related leadership

interactions in ICT project teams. Information and Software Technology, 70, 1-17.

doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2015.09.003

Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of

current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69-95.

doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2005.01.002

Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Voss, K. (2006). Competencies for virtual teamwork:

Development and validation of a web-based selection tool for members of

133

distributed teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15,

477-504. doi.10.1037/e518632013-328

Hill, N. S., & Bartol, K. M. (2016). Empowering leadership and effective collaboration in

geographically dispersed teams. Personnel Psychology, 69, 159-198. Retrieved

from http://www.apa.gov

Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership,

structural supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 99(3), 390. doi:10.14361/9783839408728-013

Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007). Trait configuration in self-

managed teams: A conceptual examination of the use of seeding for maximizing

and minimizing trait variance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 883-

889. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.885

Hu, X., Cui, N., & Demeulemeester, E. (2015). Effective expediting to improve project

due date and cost performance through buffer management. International Journal

of Production Research, 53, 1460-1471. doi.10.1080/00207543.2014.948972

Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. (2016). Reflections on the 2015 Decade Award—Social

capital, networks, and knowledge transfer: An emergent stream of

research. Academy of Management Review, 41, 573-588. Retrieved from

http://aom.org/amr

Iorio, J., & Taylor, J. E. (2015). Precursors to engaged leaders in virtual project

teams. International Journal of Project Management, 33, 395-405.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.007

134

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leider, D. E. (1999) Communication and trust in global virtual teams.

Organization Science, 10, 791-815. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable2640242. doi: 1047-7039/99/1006/0791

Justus, M. (2017). The role of pedagogical beliefs in emerging technology integration:

An exploratory case study of faculty perspectives. Qualitative Report, 22, 499-

526. doi:10.4081/aiua.2017.1.1

Kahai, S., Fjermestad, J., Zhang, S., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Leadership in virtual teams:

Past, present, and future. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 3, 1-9.

Retrieved from https://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/222338160?accountid=14872

Katz, R. L. (2009). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review. 33, 33-

42. https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents /43136750/8.pdf?AWS

AccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires = 1537395075 &

Signature =%2FwXRYAHISOm%2B0iJ8E3lDeMML%2F5U%3D&response-

content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3 DSkills_of_an_ Effective _Admi

nistrator.pdf

Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (2002). Leadership effectiveness in global virtual

teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 7-41.

doi:10.1016/s0263-2373(99)00090-0

Kirkman, B. L., Shapiro, D. L., Lu, S., & McGurrin, D. P. (2016). Culture and teams.

Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 137-142. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.12.001

135

Kornfeld, B. J., & Kara, S. (2011). Project portfolio selection in continuous improvement.

International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31, 1071-1088.

doi:10.1108/01443571111172435

Kozlowski, S. W., Grand, J. A., Baard, S. K., & Pearce, M. (2015). Teams, teamwork,

and team effectiveness: Implications for human systems integration. In (Eds.),

The handbook of human systems integration (pp. 535-552).

doi:10.4018/IJDET.2016100103

Krumm, S., & Hertel, G. (2013). Knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics

(KSAOs) for virtual team work. In D. J. Derks & A. B. Bakker (Eds.), The

psychology of digital media at work (pp. 80-99). New York, NY: Psychology

Press.

Kuo, E. W., & Thompson, L. F. (2014). The influence of disposition and social ties on

trust in new virtual teammates. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 41-48.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.030

Kuruppuarachchi, P. R. (2009). Virtual team concepts in projects: A case study. Project

Management Journal, 40(2), 19-33. doi:10.1002/pmj.20110

Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right/what can go

wrong. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Laux, D., Luse, A., & Mennecke, B. E. (2016). Collaboration, connectedness, and

community: An examination of the factors influencing student persistence in

virtual communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 452-464.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.046

136

Ledermann, T., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). The common fate model for dyadic data:

Variations of a theoretically important but underutilized model. Journal of Family

Psychology, 26 (1), 140-148. doi:10.1037/a0026624

Lee, M. R. (2013). Leading virtual project teams: Adapting leadership theories and

communications techniques to 21st century organizations.

doi:10.1787/9789264205406-en

Leonard, B. (2011). Managing virtual teams. HR Magazine, 56(6), 39-42.

https://www.madisonpg.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/HR-Magazine-

Managing-Virtual-Teams.pdf

Lin, C. P. (2010). Learning task effectiveness and social interdependence through the

mediating mechanisms of sharing and helping: A survey of online knowledge

workers. Group & Organization Management, 35, 299-328.

doi:10.1177/1059601110369730

Lincoln, T. M., Mehl, S., Exner, C., Lindenmeyer, J., & Rief, W. (2010). Attributional

style and persecutory delusions. Evidence for an event independent and state

specific external-personal attribution bias for social situations. Cognitive Therapy

and Research, 34, 297-302. doi:10.1007/s10608-015-9690-8

Lockwood, J. (2015). Virtual team management: What is causing communication

breakdown? Language and Intercultural Communication, 15, 125-140. doi:

10.1080/14708477.2014.985310

Machi, L. A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2012). The literature review: Six steps to success.

doi:10.1007/978-3-658-07340-4_3

137

Magnusson, P., Schuster, A., & Taras, V. (2014). A process-based explanation of the

psychic distance paradox: Evidence from global virtual teams. Management

International Review, 54, 283-306. doi:10.1007/s11575-014-0208-5

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research.

doi:10.1007/s10664-005-1290-x

Mathieu, C., Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Babiak, P. (2014). A dark side of

leadership: Corporate psychopathy and its influence on employee well-being and

job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 83-88.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.010

Maynard, M. T., Kennedy, D. M., & Sommer, S. A. (2015). Team adaptation: A fifteen-

year synthesis (1998–2013) and framework for how this literature needs to

“adapt” going forward. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 24, 652-677. doi.10.1080/1359432x.2014.1001376

Meister, J. C., & Willyerd, K. (2010). The 2020 workplace.

doi.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195340136.001.0001

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education:

Revised and expanded from "Case study research in education."

doi.10:0787910090

Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary

groups. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, 166, 195

doi:10.4135/9781452243610.n9

138

Minas, R. K., Potter, R. F., Dennis, A. R., Bartelt, V., & Bae, S. (2014). Putting on the

thinking cap: Using NeuroIS to understand information processing biases in

virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30(4), 49-82.

doi:10:5935/2238-3182.21040154

Mitchell, M. L., & Jolley, J. M. (2010). Research design explained. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Moretti, E., & Thulin, P. (2013). Local multipliers and human capital in the United States

and Sweden. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22, 339-362.

doi:10.1093/icc/dts051

Morgeson, F. P., Scott DeRue, D., & Karam, P. E. (2010). Leadership in teams: A

functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal

of Management. 36, 5-39. doi:10.1177/0149206309347376

Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Job characteristics and job satisfaction:

Understanding the role of enterprise resource. Management Information Systems

Quarterly, 34, 143-161. Retrieved from http://www.misq.org/

Muethel, M., & Hoegl, M. (2010). Cultural and societal influences on shared leadership

in globally dispersed teams. Journal of International Management, 16, 234-246.

doi:10.1016/j.intman.2010.06.003

Myatt, M. (2015, November 9). 5 dead giveaways you're not a credible leader. Retrieved

from https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2015/11/08/5-dead-giveaways-

youre-not-a-credible-leader/#7b194b6d6ddd

139

Nadiri, H., & Tanova, C. (2010). An investigation of the role of justice in turnover

intentions, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality

industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29, 33-41.

doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.05.001

Naor, M., Bernardes, E., & Coman, A. (2013). Theory of constraints: Is it a theory and a

good one? International Journal of Production Research, 51, 542-554.

doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.654137

Nave, D. (2002). How to compare Six Sigma, lean and the theory of constraints. Quality

Progress, 35(3), 73-80. Retrieved from

http://www.about.com/quarterlyprogressreport

Neuendorf, K. A. (2016). The content analysis guidebook.

doi.10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc065

Olariu, C., & Aldea, C. C. (2014). Managing processes for virtual teams a bpm approach.

Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 380-384.

doi:10.1016/jsbspro.2013.12.476

O'Leary, M. B., & Mortensen, M. (2010). Go (con)figure: subgroups, imbalance, and

isolates in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 21, 115-131.

doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0434

Olson, J. S., & Olson, G. M. (2014). How to make distance work work. Interactions,

21(2), 28-35. doi:10.1145/2567788

140

Olsson, B. K., & Backstrom, T. (2012, November). Innovative leadership—Supporting

creative team interaction. In Management of Technology (ISMOT), 2012

International Symposium on (pp. 378-381). IEEE.

Ortlipp, M. (2008). Keeping and using reflective journals in the qualitative research

process. Qualitative Report, 13, 695-705.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal,

experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1, 261-283. Retrieved from

http://journals.sagepub.com/home/qsw/

Pellerin, C. J. (2009). How NASA builds teams: Mission critical soft skills for scientists,

engineers, and project managers. doi:10.1002/97891119198277

Pepper, D. (2010). The business of Sigint: The role of modern management in the

transformation of GCHQ. Public Policy and Administration, 25, 85-97.

doi:10.1177/0952076709347080

Purvanova, R. K. (2014). Face-to-face versus virtual teams: What have we really learned?

Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17, 2. doi:10.1037/mgr0000009

Qu, S. Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research

in Accounting & Management, 8, 238-264. doi:10.1108/11766091111162070

Rand, G. K. (2000). Critical chain: The theory of constraints applied to project

management. International Journal of Project Management, 18(3), 173-177.

http://www.inderscience.com/jhome.php?jcode=ijpom

141

Rapp, T. L., Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Ruddy, T. (2016). Leading empowered

teams: An examination of the role of external team leaders and team coaches.

Leadership Quarterly, 27, 109-123. doi.10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.005

Ratcheva, V., & Vyakarnam, S. (2001). Exploring team formation processes in virtual

partnerships. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 12, 512-523.

doi:10.1243/09544054JEM415

Rawson, J. V., Kannan, A., & Furman, M. (2016). Use of process improvement tools in

radiology. Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology, 45, 94-100.

doi:10.1067/j.cpradiol.2015.09.004

Readman, K., & Rowe, J. (2016). Developing emerging leaders using professional

learning conversations. Higher Education Research & Development, 35, 1011-

1024. doi:10.1080/0729436.2016.1139554

Richards, D., & Bilgin, A. (2012). Cross-cultural study in ICT student attitudes and

behaviors concerning teams and project work. Multicultural Education &

Technology Journal, 6, 18-35. doi:10.1007/s12525-012-0094-2

Saafein, O., & Shaykhian, G. A. (2014). Factors affecting virtual team performance in

telecommunication support environment. Telematics and Informatics, 31, 459-

462. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2013.10.004

Sankowska, A., & Söderlund, J. (2015). Trust, reflexivity and knowledge integration:

Toward a conceptual framework concerning mobile engineers. Human Relations,

68, 973-1000. doi.10.1177/0018726714549646

142

Schaubroeck, J. M., & Yu, A. (2017). When does virtuality help or hinder teams? Core

team characteristics as contingency factors. Human Resource Management

Review 27(4), 635-47. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.009

Scott, C. P., & Wildman, J. L. (2015). Culture, communication, and conflict: A review of

the global virtual team literature. In Leading global teams (pp. 13-32).

doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2050-1_2

Serban, A., Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Kahai, S. S., Hao, C., McHugh, K. A., . . .

Peterson, D. R. (2015). Leadership emergence in face-to-face and virtual teams: A

multi-level model with agent-based simulations, quasi-experimental and

experimental tests. Leadership Quarterly, 26, 402-418.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.02.006

Sethuraman, J., Sekar, K. R., & Sivaramakrishnan, N. (2014). Social responsibility

management in a collaborative web environment. World Applied Sciences

Journal, 29, 768-773. doi:10.1007/s11280-012-0172-6

SHRM.org. (2013). Virtual teams used most by global organizations, survey says.

Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/

Siebdrat, F., Hoegl, M., & Ernst, H. (2009). How to manage virtual teams. MIT Sloan

Management Review, 50, 63-68. Retrieved from http://sloanreview.mit.edu

Sinani, F. (2016). The effects of participative leadership practices on job satisfaction for

highly skilled virtual teams (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest

Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 10110295.)

143

Singleton, R., & Straits, B. (2010). Approaches to social research. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Stake. R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stanney, K. M., & Zyda, M. (2002). Virtual environments in the 21st century. In K. M.

Stanney (Ed.), Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and

applications (pp. 1-14). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Publishers.

Steinhardt, B. (2011). National security: An overview of professional development

activities intended to improve interagency collaboration. Darby, PA: DIANE.

Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1999). Staffing work teams: Development and

validation of a selection test for teamwork skills. Journal of Management, 25,

207-228. doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(99)80010-5

Šukalová, V., & Ceniga, P. (2015). Application of the theory of constraints instrument in

the enterprise distribution system. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 134-139.

doi:10.1016/s2212-5671(15)00445-1

Sunder, M. V. (2016). Lean six sigma project management—A stakeholder management

perspective. TQM Journal, 28, 132-150. doi:10.1108/tqm-09-2014-0070

Thangarajoo, Y., & Smith, A. (2015). Lean thinking: An overview. Industrial

Engineering & Management, 4(2) 2169-0316. doi:10.4172/2169-0316.1000159

Thomas, G. (2015). How to do your case study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tracy, S. J. (2012). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,

communicating impact. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00978.x

144

Tulasi, C. L., Rao, A. R., & Tirupati, A. P. (2012). Review on theory of

constraints. International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, 3,

334-344. doi:10.5267/j.ac.2015.12.004

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic

analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing &

health sciences, 15(3), 398-405. doi:10.111/nhs.12048

Wakefield, R. L., Leidner, D. E., & Garrison, G. (2008). A model of conflict, leadership

and performance in virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 19, 434-455.

doi:10.1287/isre.1070.0149

Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2010). Structural impacts on the occurrence and effectiveness of

transformational leadership: An empirical study at the organizational level of

analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 765-782. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.006

Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A.

L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of

leader–member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 204-213.

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.002

Weimann, P., Pollock, M., Scott, E., & Brown, I. (2013). Enhancing team performance

through tool use: How critical technology-related issues influence the

performance of virtual project teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional

Communication, 56, 332-353. Retrieved from http://www.ieee.org

145

Wildman, J. L., Shuffler, M. L., Lazzara, E. H., Fiore, S. M., Burke, C. S., Salas, E., &

Garven, S. (2012). Trust development in swift starting action teams: A multilevel

framework. Group & Organization Management, 37, 137-170.

doi:1059/601111434202

Woeppel, M. (2016). Manufacturer's guide to implementing the theory of constraints.

doi:10.1201/9781420025712

Wright, E. (2012). Assessing leadership behaviors and demographic characteristics of

project managers associated through LinkedIn (Doctoral dissertation). Available

from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 992876461)

Yao, C. Y., Tsai, C. C., & Fang, Y. C. (2015). Understanding social capital, team

learning, members’-loyalty and knowledge sharing in virtual communities. Total

Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26, 619-631.

doi:10.1080/14783363.2013.865918

Yılmaz, F. G. K., Yılmaz, R., Öztürk, H. T., Sezer, B., & Karademir, T. (2015).

Cyberloafing as a barrier to the successful integration of information and

communication technologies into teaching and learning environments. Computers

in Human Behavior, 45, 290-298. Retrieved from

https://www.journals.elsevier.com/computers-in-human-behavior/

Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research. doi.10.1111/j.1540-

4781.2011.01212_17.x

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. doi:10.3138/cjpe.30.1.108

146

Zakaria, N., & Yusof, S. A. M. (2015). Can we count on you at a distance? The impact of

culture on formation of swift trust within global virtual teams. In Leading global

teams (pp. 253-268). doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2050-1_11

Zaugg, H., & Davies, R. S. (2013). Communication skills to develop trusting

relationships on global virtual engineering capstone teams. European Journal of

Engineering Education, 38, 228-233. doi:10.1080/03043797.2013.766678

Zhang, S., & Fjermestad, J. (2006). Bridging the gap between traditional leadership

theories and virtual team leadership. International Journal of Technology, Policy

and Management, 6, 274-291. doi:10.1504/IJTPM.2006.011253

Ziek, P., & Smulowitz, S. (2014). The impact of emergent virtual leadership

competencies on team effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 35, 106-120. doi:10.1108/lodj-03-2012-0043

147

Appendix A: Questionnaire for the Virtual Team Leaders

1. Please give your government position (i.e. budget analyst, or, program analyst, etc.) and how you were chosen as a virtual leader at your respective agency?

2. How would you describe your leadership style when leading a virtual team?

3. How do you communicate with your team members?

4. What is the earliest experience of a successful project deliverable you can recall?

5. What is your perception of trust in your organization, your agency, and your

team?

6. As a team leader, how can virtual team members build initial trusting

relationships in the virtual workplace to enable successful project deliverables?

7. Using your experience, can you explain instances that team members’ exhibit trust

challenges?

8. From your perspective on virtual challenges, what could prevent virtual team

members from successful implementing a project?

9. Additional research: please indicate yes or no, if you are willing to volunteer for a

check-list review (additional 5 questions below) and at no time will you have to turn in

your personal emails, agenda, logs, virtual communications, these items are to be

reviewed by you through a checklist to assist you as a reminder of how you and your

virtual teams communicate and mitigate challenges

If you chose yes – please review the checklist and questions on Appendix C:1:

148

Appendix B: Checklist of Items

Please use any items that you use with your virtual team to assist you with the below answers (i.e.

emails, agendas, progress logs, timelines, matrix, etc):

1. Please describe the amount of projects you have in each category below:

a. Timelines (Generally, how long are your timelines in your virtual projects currently

[within a set timeline of a week?, a month?, a quarter?])

b. Number of projects (How many outstanding projects do you currently have as a virtual

leader?)

c. Successful projects (How many successful projects have you lead as a virtual leader?)

d. Overdue projects (How many overdue projects have occurred as a virtual team leader?

And why?)

2. Do you and your virtual team use any of the below? If so how?

a. Email Communication

b. Agenda for meetings

c. Type Minutes in Meetings / Distribute after each meeting

d. GoToMeeting/WebX/Skype – Teleconf

e. Chat – in-between meetings

f. Social chatting to build trust/relationships

g. Face-to-Face meeting (Quarterly/or Yearly)

3. What types of email communication do you and your team provide throughout the

project? Is it standard, routine? Does it help? Or hinder the project?

a. Agenda

b. Examples

c. Repositories

d. Recordings

4. Are you required by your agency to keep or provide any of the above? What are thoughts

about these items?

a. Training examples

b. Formal

c. Informal

d. Competencies

5. What type of virtual training did you receive to become a virtual trainer? How often do

you re-train?

6. Do you have a Standard of Procedure (SOP), to include Rules and Regulations in place at

your office as a Virtual Leader?

149

7. Would you like to add any additional thoughts on being a virtual leader or the training

you received which positive impacts the success of the virtual teams you encounter?

150

Appendix C: Approval E-mail – Questionnaire Questions

Blank Page