Order 1299446: Leading teams and managing relationships

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Getting it done: Critical success factors for project managers in virtual work settings

Robert M. Verburg a,⁎, Petra Bosch-Sijtsema c, Matti Vartiainen b

a Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands b Aalto University School of Science and Technology, Finland

c Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

Received 10 December 2010; received in revised form 28 February 2012; accepted 17 April 2012

Abstract

What conditions do project managers perceive as the most important to get the work done when working in fully dispersed settings? Rather than focusing on problems that managers experience when working in dispersed settings, our study highlights the conditions that are important for successful task accomplishment. We applied a Means-End-Chain (MEC) method to investigate the links between task accomplishment and relevant conditions that are attributes, benefits and values among a sample of experienced project managers (N=30). Our results show that important conditions for successful project execution in a dispersed setting include rules of communication and its clarity; project management style and goal-setting; and managers' competences and trust in a team. In addition to these internal conditions, project managers also stress the importance of both corporate and technology support. These four conditions are all perceived as vital for task accomplishment in global dispersed projects. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Managing projects; Managing teams; Managing individuals; Leadership; Dispersed teams

1. Introduction

Information and communication technologies (ICT) allow project organizations to extend their activities from traditional co- located settings to dispersed or virtual settings (e.g. Cramton and Webber, 2005; Hertel et al., 2005; Lee-Kelley and Sankey, 2008; Montoya et al., 2009; Rad and Levin, 2003). With the increase of globally dispersed work, a growing number of studies show a number of issues that influence the degree of seamless collaboration within globally dispersed teams (Anantatmula and Thomas, 2010; Bell and Kozlowski, 2002; O'Leary and Cummings, 2007; Schweitzer and Duxbury, 2010; Townsend et al., 1998). Especially, differences in time, location, culture, or a combination of these factors provide some substantial challenges

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 152787234; fax: +31 152782950. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.M. Verburg),

[email protected] (P. Bosch-Sijtsema), [email protected] (M. Vartiainen).

0263-7863/$36.00 © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.04.005

for globally dispersed teams (Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999). Many of these globally dispersed teams' members work in one or even multiple projects (Ziga-Viktorssen et al., 2006). Such global project teams come in many forms, with differing objectives, membership criteria, and levels of dispersion and diversity (Zigurs, 2003).

Organizations are more often than before comprised of temporary systems whose elements – people as well as technology – are assembled and disassembled according to the shifting needs of specific projects (Huemann, 2010; Kaulio, 2008; Keegan and Den Hartog, 2004; Modig, 2007; Thirty and Deguire, 2007). Employees often participate simultaneously in many projects. In addition to multi-tasking, the content of work is also changing and becoming more intellectual rather than physical. The role of technologies as an enabler is essential for dispersed organizations and global project teams. Their members must communicate, coordinate, and build relationships largely – and in case of fully dispersed settings exclusively – via information and communication technologies (ICT), which enable full

69R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79

collaboration without being co-located (Andriessen, 2002; Montoya et al., 2009). Developments in mobile, wireless and smart ICT have increased further on possibilities to work flexibly in any place and time (Andriessen and Vartiainen, 2006).

The aim of this study is to gain insight how project managers may improve effective collaboration between dispersed team members. We focus on the perspective of a project manager who is responsible for task accomplishment. When a project needs to be executed in a dispersed setting, what are the most important attributes for a responsible manager to get the work done? Rather than to focus on the problems that managers experience through working in dispersed settings our study highlights some critical factors for successful task accomplish- ment from the perspective of the project manager. The paper is organized as follows. First we present a review of current literature on global dispersed teams and generate a list of possible conditions that are important for project managers in order to successfully work in dispersed work settings. Next, we describe our methodology and present the results of our empirical analysis. Finally, we discuss the implications of our research.

1.1. Perspectives on virtuality

In dispersed work settings, mediated ‘virtual’ communica- tion is needed in collaboration. There are two main concepts of “virtuality” to characterize work settings: the technology-oriented approach and the system-oriented approach (see Speier and Palmer, 1998). In the technology-oriented approach, the degree of “virtuality” is defined and measured as the amount, the frequency, and the quality of electronically mediated communi- cation. This measure is often complemented with the amount and frequency of face-to-face contacts as the other basis of the categorization. The system-oriented approach does not only highlight the immediate interaction relationships and the quality of their outcomes but views technology as only one feature of work conditions. Some factors are related to intra-group processes, such as the cohesion of a group or an organization, to the needs to communicate virtually and, finally, the types of information technology needed to support work activities (Chudoba et al., 2005; Gibson and Gibbs, 2006; Speier and Palmer, 1998). As shown in the cocitation analysis of Raghuram et al. (2010) research interests on virtual work have grown from 1995 on and are shown as increased number of research clusters in the field. Inside the cluster of “virtual teams”, several sub-topics are continuously discussed. Ragrum et al. conclude that the field of virtual work is still robust and dynamic, and the answering to the question of what is “virtual” still continues. Especially in the area of project management working under distributed circum- stances is rather a rule than an exception.

The concept of discontinuity is important in this context. Discontinuities are described as gaps or a lack of coherence in aspects of work, such as work setting, task, and relations with other workers or managers. Discontinuities can arise in factors such as the location of the workers, how work is accomplished, and the basis for relationships between workers and organiza- tions, and between organizations (Chudoba et al., 2005; Watson- Manheim et al., 2002). Possible sources of discontinuities can be:

geographical location, temporal location (time-zone), organiza- tional (both intra- and inter-organizational), culture, work practice and technology discontinuities. Project managers could benefit by concentrating on these discontinuities as these are sources of possible disturbances in globally dispersed teams. The factors are not always logically interrelated. For example, group members dispersed in different countries can work towards a common goal under centralized supervision without any communication except with their manager when their tasks are loosely coupled and workflow is sequentially organized (Bell and Kozlowski, 2002). Also, co-located team members commonly communicate with each other by sending e-mails, instant messages or using other tools. For project managers it is important to perform in globally dispersed teams by using such tools effectively.

1.2. The challenge of fully dispersed settings

Employees often participate simultaneously in many projects and successful project management depends on the facilitation of communication and the building of work relationships among members (Huemann, 2010). The role of technologies as an enabler is essential for dispersed global project teams as the core of communication and the building of relationships is performed through information and communication technologies (Montoya et al., 2009). Many global firms increasingly organize their projects through globally dispersed project teams with high degrees of virtuality. Global project teams may experience higher or lower levels of diversity, have different degrees of geographic dispersion, and may differ in their dependence on electronic tools. Such teams are often deployed for limited durations of time and are characterized by strict budgets and high turnover rates among members of the team (e.g. Rad and Levin, 2003). These can be called global dispersed project teams. Members of dispersed project teams are spanning boundaries of space and time when working temporary on a shared goal and communicate primarily by means of ICT (Bell and Kozlowski, 2002; Dubé and Paré, 2004; Evaristo, 2003; Griffith and Neale, 2001.

1.3. Benefits and barriers of global dispersed project teams

The needs to exploit local expertise when needed, the flexibility, and the responsiveness to the local market and customers' needs are reported in the literature as generic benefits of dispersed project work (Anantatmula and Thomas, 2010; Davidow and Malone, 1992; Karolak, 1998; Kuruppuarachchi, 2009; McDonough et al., 2001; Wiesenfeld et al., 1999). These developments are associated with possible economical and efficiency benefits, such as savings in real estate and travel costs, and the opportunity to work around the clock (Grimshaw and Kwok, 1998). There are also a number of generic problems with dispersed work reported in the literature. These problems include difficulties in communica- tion of complex tasks, quality of technological tools, trust building, and leadership issues (see Hertel et al., 2005; Kuruppuarachchi, 2009; Martins et al., 2004 for overviews), decreased effectiveness (Cramton and Webber, 2005) as well as issues of well-being such as feelings of isolation and

70 R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79

increased mental workload (Nurmi, 2011; Richter et al., 2006).

Research on the impact of ICT mediated communication on dispersed team effectiveness shows conflicting results (Martins et al., 2004). Contrary to face-to-face meetings, which provide for information exchange over multiple channels (vision, sound and smell), an often used asynchronous application such as e-mail can only transfer text based information. Although more advanced tools, such as chat, audio- and videoconferencing, sophisticated groupware tools and virtual world environments are nowadays available to dispersed teams, these teams seem to take more time to reach their goals. On the other hand, the addition of videoconference resources to a team has been found to lead to significant improvements to the quality of a team's decisions (Baker, 2002).

The use of media capable of transferring information via multiple channels also results in increased levels of performance and trust (Burgoon et al., 2002). The novelty of technology used in dispersed teams has been found to negatively impact team performance (Cramton and Webber, 2005). Teams with members who have few opportunities to meet face-to-face are also vulnerable to process losses and performance problems (Gibson and Cohen, 2003; Lipnack and Stamps, 2000). Many researchers, therefore, have claimed that face-to-face meetings are vital for dispersed teams, especially in the startup phase of the team (Duarte and Snyder, 1999; Gibson and Cohen, 2003). Montoya et al. (2009) concluded that the ICT use in virtual new product design teams was contingent on task type. e.g., gathering information and problem solving, ICT type, e.g. e-mail and shared applications, and situational factors in organizations. A few studies discuss the effectiveness of global project teams from the project managers' perspective and highlight the critical role of strong leadership in helping project teams to overcome their challenges (for example, Anantatmula and Thomas, 2010; Edmondson and Nembhard, 2009; Kayworth and Leidner, 2000). Other research focuses on multi-projecting and its negative consequences for long-term development, learning as well as reflection time for project managers (Ziga-Viktorssen et al., 2006).

1.4. Managing global dispersed project teams

A review shows that there is ample attention for the organization of projects in the project management literature, although studies on dispersed projects are limited (Artto and Wikström, 2005). In this study, we focus on situations in which project managers are working in project teams with high degrees of “virtuality”. In such situations, face-to-face contacts among team members are limited and we assume that collabo- ration is primarily done electronically and that the quality of electronic interaction is high. This implies that the speed, richness, and volume of transferred information are also high. The project manager is usually the stable part of a team under these conditions and acts as the coordinator and primary decision maker within such teams (Keegan and Den Hartog, 2004). It is the project manager who may decide on how to organize the dispersed work. Past research has identified a number of attributes of dispersed work that are usually taken for granted as the main decision

criteria for going fully virtual, namely the level of diversity of team members (e.g. Barinaga, 2007), the level of trust (e.g. Diallo and Thuillier, 2005) and of the quality of technical equipment forcommunication (e.g. Hertel et al., 2005; Martins et al., 2004). We are particularly interested in what attributes of global dispersed project teams are important for managers to get the work done. In other words, what conditions are important for project managers when faced with high degrees of ‘virtuality’.

There are a number of critical success conditions for leading dispersed, ICT-mediated project teams. The formation of the desired norms and values among team members has received much attention and is an important condition for teams in general and dispersed teams in particular (e.g. Powell et al., 2004; Wiesenfeld et al., 1999). Shenhar and Dvir (1996) suggest that planning and control are core activities of project managers. In order to do so, project managers are involved with the division of the overall task into subtasks, define clear responsibilities, and set out clear communication rules that are rooted in organizational norms and values. Such norms and values may help dispersed team members in creating a sense of connectedness with other team members and might increase the task interdependence (Hertel et al., 2005; Maznevski, 1994; Van der Vegt and Janssen, 2003).

Another well-documented condition for successful team work is trust among team members. Especially, for dispersed team members, trust is often perceived as a necessary condition for collaboration (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998). Next to trust, diversity among team members has been defined by Gibson and Gibbs (2006) as of major importance to virtuality. Dispersed project teams are likely to involve members from different countries and cultural backgrounds. Teams with a high degree of virtuality may show individual differences among team members in terms of gender, age, skills and cultural values. There may also be differences in experience with dispersed team works. Research shows that diversity in cultural background and competences of team members are a source of misunderstanding and conflict (Maznevski and Chudoba, 2000). Dealing with diversity can, therefore, be regarded as an important condition for success of dispersed teams. Kayworth and Leidner (2000) show that the skills of the project manager in articulating goals, assigning responsibilities and providing continuous feedback are also important for the success of virtual project teams. Leadership skills alone are not enough and research indicates that leaders of dispersed projects need ample company support in order to get the work done (Gibson and Cohen, 2003; Hertel et al., 2005; Lipnack and Stamps, 2000).

1.5. Accomplishment as project managers' value

In order to gain insight in which conditions are important for project managers, we focus on task accomplishment as their core value. The value of accomplishment implies personal success through demonstrating competence according to prevail- ing cultural standards (Schwartz, 1992). Values are seen as universal and as a vital component of the self-concept, and they are considered essential to the experience of meaning (Cha and Edmondson, 2006). Many organizations adhere to performance-

71R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79

oriented values, such as quality, effectiveness, efficiency or profitability, or they define communal values like the welfare and needs of employees (Cha and Edmondson, 2006). For team leaders, values are stable and long-term beliefs about what is important for the success of a team (Sheard and Kakabdse, 2001).

Values have been widely studied in crosscultural fields. Schwartz (1994) defines values as desirable trans-situational goals that vary in importance and may serve as guiding principles for a person. Values can be understood as objectives, which consciously or unconsciously function as criteria in all our actions. When viewing values as objectives, the following aspects can be acknowledged: (1) values function as interests for individuals or groups; (2) values motivate behavior and give it direction and intensity; (3) values function as criteria for the evaluation and justification of behavior; (4) values are acquired through the socialization of dominant group norms and through unique individual experiences (Schwartz, 1994). Values are important for organizational change and are rooted in organizational cultures. Organizational culture constitutes ‘the way we do things here’ within a team or organization. The concept is usually defined as a framework consisting of assumptions and values shared by organization members (Schein, 1985). Within teams, cultures provide a sense of identity for team members, generate commitment to the mission, and clarify or even reinforce behavior. Leaders play a role in the change and maintenance of cultures through influencing the team through their values. Leaders of project teams differ from those of traditional work groups as leaders of project teams tend to help team members (subordinates) to take responsibility for their own work rather than telling them what to do (Sheard and Kakabdse, 2001).

The attributes of settings with high degrees of “virtuality” are part of the organizational context and influence leadership choices on how to get the work done. Therefore, we link the above-described attributes of virtual settings to personal motiva- tions related to benefits and values of decision-makers. In our study, we assume that the project manager is usually the coordinator and primary decision maker within project teams (Keegan and Den Hartog, 2004). In practice, project managers may encounter many organizational constraints in making de- cisions. We linked the attributes discussed in literature (i.e., organizational aspects of projects, team trust and culture, diversity, leadership, and company support) with the values of project managers as decision-makers in Fig. 1.

The aim of our study is to find links between conditions and the value of accomplishment when project managers are dealing with fully virtual work settings.

2. Methodology

We applied the Means-End Chain (MEC) method for collecting and analyzing qualitative data from 30 project managers (25 males and 5 females) of virtual project teams in nine global companies. The global companies operate in diverse areas, such as software development, electronics, engineering, and oil and gas. On average the project managers in our sample reported to have 7.9 years of experience in (dispersed) project teams and had led about six different dispersed team projects. The MEC method enables a

detailed visualization of qualitative data. The means-end theory shows how attributes of an object are linked to its consequences (benefits and drawbacks), which in turn can be linked to the attainment of values (Gutman, 1982; Olson and Reynolds, 1983; Rosenberg, 1956). Therefore objects – in our case the conditions of dispersed work settings – are selected for both their characteristics and attributes as well as for the benefits. These benefits are usually perceived subconsciously and connected with the achievement of individual goals (Peter and Olson, 1987). An underlying assumption is that decision-makers, such as project managers, take the consequences of their decisions into consideration (Reynolds and Gutman, 1988). Before making a decision, people judge these consequences and align their decision making with their preference systems. Certain immedi- ate benefits are considered to be attractive because they lead to more fundamental outcomes (values), which justify benefit- oriented decisions. Eventually, people will decide for things that support and justify their values.

The connections or links between attributes, benefits and values can be identified by using the ‘laddering technique’ (cf. Reynolds and Gutman, 1988). It is an interviewing method that aims at explaining choices through the identification of the links among object attributes, associated with consequences and values. In this laddering technique, interviewees are asked repeatedly why a specific attribute in an object is important in order to understand how project managers translate these attributes of their work conditions into meaningful associations to benefits and values. In this reasoning process project managers justify their decisions on how to successfully manage a dispersed project by identifying links between conditions and benefits and then link these benefits to values. MEC enables us to understand the relatively un-programmed behavior of a senior project manager by revealing their motives and values in relation to working under distributed conditions. The MEC framework reveals connections between stable values and attributes of virtual teams which are directly relevant to decision making in global projects. In this way, the important conditions for working under high degrees of “virtuality” in project teams may be established. Rather than asking directly for these conditions, we focus on their goals and values in order to get a less biased view on what conditions are important for getting the work done.

2.1. Collecting laddering data by interviews

The MEC-process implies a number of steps. We performed personal, in-depth and structured interviews for at least 1 h with 30 senior project managers of global companies. The interviews were held in English in three countries, i.e., Finland, Netherlands and Switzerland, and interviewees came from eight different European nationalities. These project managers were selected on the basis of their seniority in leading global virtual projects. First, an interview protocol was developed by the whole research team. Then, the interview list of attributes (Fig. 1) and interview method was pilot tested by all three research groups. This test was taped, transcribed and evaluated afterwards. The developed interview protocol made sure to collect sufficient

Team processes Trust Open and clear communication Team selection

High potential motivators • Control • Duty • Accomplishment • Creation • Community • Freedom • Harmony • Reputation

Willingness to work fully virtual

Individual diversity Homogeneity/diversity of backgrounds Age Experience Social interaction skills

Leadership Interpersonal skills Experience Power and control

Company support Support with tools, time, and incentives Communication rules, policy

Project organization Clear cut task Clear common goal Clear responsibilities Clear communication rules Technology Tasks

M o

ti v

a to

rs o

f d

e c

is io

n m

a k

e rs

A tt

ri b

u te

s o

f v

ir tu

a l

s e

tt in

g s

Fig. 1. Linking virtual settings attributes to motivators of decision makers.

72 R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79

context data (soft laddering) and data for attributes, benefits and values. The data was collected in the following four steps:

(a) Background information of the interviewee. These items included information on the personal characteristics and job information of interviewees, for example work experi- ence as a project manager, working with virtual teams and tenure.

(b) Attributes of importance for high degree virtual projects. The elicitation of attributes was based on a fictive scenario of a high degree dispersed work setting. The following scenario was presented to each interviewee:

“Imagine that you are asked to lead a new one-year project within your area of expertise. The task is complex, e.g. the delivery of a worldwide (10 countries) market research report, and requires a dispersed team, such as local experts in all countries that you need to cover. Moreover you are working on a tight budget. This means that travel costs must be avoided. You need to perform the task in a fully virtual manner, using phone and videoconferences, a shared data- base and a virtual team room. There are no opportunities for face-to-face contact.”

After presenting the scenario, we started to identify the attributes of the virtual work environment which would be

of importance to the interviewee. We intended to collect 10–15 distinct attributes from one interviewee. We did that by asking repeatedly the same question: “What would be important for you in this situation?” For example:

• Question: “What would be important for you in this situation?”

• Answer: “Team members that know how to work virtually.”

• Question: “What else would be important for you in this situation?”

• Answer: “A strong technological support — like a 24 h IT service that supports me when the system does not work.”(…)

• Question: … • Question: … etc.

(c) Identifying the ladders. After finding the attributes, we identified the benefits and values of each attribute of the respondents through laddering. For every single attribute we asked “why is that important for the project/for you personally?” Box 1 features an example of laddering interview. The goal of laddering was to acquire a chain of attributes, benefits and values as cognitive paths.

(d) A reality check. As the interview was based on the fictive scenario, an immediate reality check for validation purposes was performed in a 10 minute session at the end of each interview. It aimed to let the respondents reflect on their

73R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79

answers and to relate these to some bad and good practices of real projects conducted within their organizations. For the results of the reality check we refer to the Results: importance of accomplishment as value section.

2.2. Analysis and presentation

All of the interviews were taped and transcribed. We used iterative coding – indexing of the same interviews by three different analysts – definitions of attributes, benefits and values to make sure all analysts will use the same definitions. In the laddering analysis, attributes as critical factors for project success were first identified, next we focused on the benefits as consequences of these attributes, and finally values as drivers of project managers' activities were identified. The methodol- ogy enabled us to identify a number of important attributes of the dispersed work environment on the basis of the interviews following the scenario. The benefits that were put forward by the respondents could be linked to values. The result is shown as a picture or hierarchical value map of the “ideal world” (see Fig. 2). This visualization depicts how a dispersed work environment needs to be designed in order to meet the needs and values of the interviewees.

3. Results: importance of accomplishment as value

In total 276 attributes were put forward in the interviews. The identified attributes were linked to the benefits and values by laddering them through a hierarchical value map as presented in Fig. 2. In this figure, the thick lines represent strong links, i.e. in case a certain link was mentioned more than 13 times by the different respondents. Thinner lines represent

Box 1 Example of laddering interview.

Interviewer: “You mentioned the importance of enabling the technical setups, like enabling call conference, this document and data repository and having the email list distribution, why is this important?”

Respondent: “Good communication is one of the key issues at least in these kinds of big virtual projects, so that everybody knows the policies and procedures about how to communicate with each other, they know what email lists or phone conference to use and they know where to find information for this phone conference, numbers and email lists. They know where to look for and to access the comments; they know that they are stored in a well defined place where you can rely on the fact that all the documents are placed (benefits).”

Interviewer: “Why is this important to you?” Respondent: “Because when this kind of setting is in place, it

ensures the progress in the project and it ensures that I can check that the project is progressing, I can go to that documents area and check that there are new drafts and that something is happening (value).”

The cognitive path in this example is the following one: attribute = importance of enabling the technical setups; benefit = good communication; and value = job security related to project and company success.

links that were mentioned more than eight times and the dotted lines represent weaker links between benefits and values. In this case, a specific link was mentioned only between four and seven times by our respondents. The benefits and attributes that were most prominently addressed by the respondents are represented by the gray shaded boxes in the figure.

The nine identified attributes in Fig. 2 represent 72% of all the 276 attributes that were originally mentioned in the interviews. The following conditions for dispersed project work are the most important ones: support and resources a company provides; rules of communication and its clarity; project management style and goal-setting; and managers' competences and trust in a team. Although many benefits that emerged from the attributes were identified in literature, only five benefits were mentioned relatively often in the interviews. The most important benefit is ‘Faster project conduct’. This benefit has the most links to the attributes (24% of the links). Other important benefits are: ‘increased project control’, ‘alignment and shared goals’, ‘stronger focus on work than politics’ and ‘improved work motivation’.

We found that the value of accomplishment was the most important value (represents 61% of all links mentioned) of the initial list of eight values (see Fig. 1). Other values that were mentioned more often were reputation (represents 10%), creation (8%), and power/control (5%). The three top values represent 79% of all the links mentioned from benefits to values. Thus, as expected and in line with current insights into project execution (Turner et al., 2008), accomplishment and reputation are the important drivers for project managers also when they are involved with situations with a high degree of “virtuality”. Reputation is here defined as a value, i.e., the project manager's concern for creating (or maintaining) a good reputation of the team and its individual members in an organization and towards customers.

From our interview data the value of accomplishment is perceived as the most important objective for which project managers strive in a setting with high degrees of “virtuality”. The value of accomplishment is fed by benefits associated with fully virtual settings. Faster project conduct (efficiency) is the most important benefit for reaching accomplishment in our data. However, also increased project control and the alignment of shared goals within the team are important perceived benefits of project managers related to accomplishment. To a lesser extent the benefits of a stronger focus on work than on politics and improved work motivation lead to accomplishment. In order to achieve these benefits and accomplishment, project managers see management support and infrastructure resources, teaming and team skills and project-management aspects as most important attributes. Project managers value the fact that a project can be conducted faster (faster project conduct) and to finish a project before the deadline. Accomplishment and reputation are impor- tant for the performance appraisal of project managers, and it is no surprise that we find this in our interviews with project leaders. Accomplishment and reputation are important drivers for project managers regardless of the specific circumstances.

However, in case of high degrees of virtuality and dispersed work settings, what do leaders specifically need in order to be successful in terms of accomplishing their task under conditions

Fig. 2. Hierarchical value map of all interviews.

74 R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79

of limited face-to-face interactions, diversity and mediated electronic interactions among team members? We found three strong pathways to answer this question. The data as reported in Fig. 2 suggested three strong pathways from attributes to benefits and values: (a) the communication– efficiency/alignment–accomplishment path; (b) the corporate and technical support–efficiency–accomplishment path and (c) the support and communication rules–speed/control–reputation path. In these three pathways, the value accomplishment and the benefits of efficiency (faster project conduct) play overriding roles. Below we discuss these three strong linked pathways in more detail and explain these pathways with help of quotes and examples from the interviews.

3.1. The communication–efficiency/alignment–accomplishment link

We found a strong link between clear communication rules, faster project conduct and the value of accomplishment (representing 61% of links, see Fig. 3). Clear communication rules imply rules and policies defined by the dispersed team and a project manager about how and when to communicate and with what kind of tools (e.g., meetings, deliverables, code of conduct, where to find stored material). These rules are important according to the project managers so that people know what to do and that the project is not delayed by misunderstandings about how to communicate with each other. As one project manager mentioned:

‘Well, it is again the guidelines, which everyone can follow. … It guides for example a phone conference; everybody knows he has to be present and he is not allowed to put his phone on mute to be sure that he does not do anything else. He will follow that. It is much easier then to communicate or to focus the people on the real task.’

Together with clear communication rules, project managers mentioned the attributes of trust and open and clear communica- tion (as a basis to create trust). Open and clear communication also contributed to a faster project conduct because less misunder- standings and conflicts would arise. Further, the alignment of the team and shared goals within the team were seen as an important benefit of both having clear communication rules and trust within the team. Several interviewees discussed the fact that their global project team members worked in multiple both local and global projects, and project managers had to communicate often and clearly to create shared goal alignments for the global projects. The communication–efficiency/alignment link is strongly related to the value of accomplishment. Project managers view it as important to create a trusting team in which members have clarity and are open towards one another and in which clarity about how to communicate is important. These conditions help to increase the speed of the project and create alignment and shared goals. Increasing the speed of product conduct is beneficial for economic reasons (less costs for pursuing the project), and the alignment and shared goals create a team which works more closely together which could be beneficial for the team spirit and indirectly for the final results. The value of accomplishment demonstrates the

0.08

0.17

0.08

Trust

Alignment & shared goals

0.11

Clear communi-

cation rules

Open & clear communi-

cation

0.24

Faster project conduct

0.61

Accomplishment

41% of 276

37% of 276

61% of 329

Mentioned ≥ 14 times Mentioned ≥ 9 times Mentioned > 4 times

Number of links mentioned

0.08

0.17

0.08

Benefits

Trust

Alignment & shared goals

Values

0.11

Clear communi-

cation rules

Open & clear communi-

cation

0.24

Faster project conduct

0.24

Faster project conduct

0.61

Accomplishment

41% of 276

37% of 276

61% of 329

Attributes

Fig. 3. The communication–efficiency/alignment–accomplishment link.

75R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79

ability of the project manager to lead a fully virtual project; the ability to reach the goal.

3.2. The corporate and technical support–efficiency–accom- plishment link

We also found that the support of the company in the form of policies, tools and infrastructures, and rewards and incentives was beneficial for a faster project conduct (24% of the links, see Fig. 4) and the alignment and shared goals (17%) in the team. The examples mentioned by project managers were the management support by the firm, the support in offering training and education in how to work in virtual projects, and rewards and incentives presented by the firm for working virtually. A project manager mentioned:

‘Support of the company can be shown in many ways. Of course the necessary support from the company is that you have all the tools available, but when you have all those tools and if you are making huge personal sacrifices for a long time, you expect some other support from the company as well, a possibility to compensate your long hours with some leisure time. … some people may think that they have to be compensated with money.’

Another manager stated:

‘(…) but I have the tools that provide me the flexibility and in a way positive attitude from my supervisor in this kind of working method, so positive in that way that I can personally alone decide when I work, how I work, what I do. Trust from my boss.’

We found a relatively strong link between the technical support for fully virtual settings and having the benefits of faster project conduct (efficiency) and increased project control. Project managers felt that they were able to follow the progress of the

project with help of technical support and the speed of the project would be improved. One project manager mentioned:

‘When this kind of setting (technological setting) is in place, it ensures the progress in the project and it ensures that I can check that the project is progressing.’

The benefits of speed, control and alignment also had a strong link to the value of accomplishment of project managers. The support of the company and the technological infrastructure offered are perceived as valuable for project managers to succeed in their task (accomplishment value) by increasing the project conduct, increasing project control, and creating alignment and shared goals.

3.3. The support and communication rules–speed/control– reputation path

Besides accomplishment, the value of reputation appears to be important and represents 10% of the links. Corporate support and technology support for working fully virtual and clear communication rules can help to nurture the project manager's reputation through increased project control and faster project conduct. Our interviews show that project managers are very concerned with their reputation within their companies. Reputa- tion enables project managers to have better access to company resources and people (see Fig. 5).

‘In the beginning we have an idea, then a solution, documentation and after that we start to realize the software. It is very important that we know exactly what we are doing. And also that we are checking, doing the right thing in a way. … so in a way checking that you are progressing in the right way. … if we are doing something else than we should be doing, it is no success for anybody, it

0.17 0.18

0.090.11

Multimedia Support

Corporate support for virtual work

Alignment & shared goals

Increased project control

0.24

Faster project conduct

0.61

Accomplishment

49% of 276

20% of 276

61% of 329

0.17 0.18

0.090.11

Benefits

Attributes

Multimedia Support

Corporate support for virtual work

Alignment & shared goals

Increased project control

Values

Management Support & Infrastructure Resources

0.24

Faster project conduct

0.24

Faster project conduct

0.61

Accomplishment

49% of 276

20% of 276

61% of 329

Mentioned ≥ 14 times Mentioned ≥ 9 times Mentioned > 4 times

Number of links mentioned

Fig. 4. Business and technical support–efficiency–accomplishment link.

76 R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79

is bad for the whole group and also for the company. We are wasting time and money and resources for wrong things. Nobody would like to be involved in that kind of thing, doing something else than you should do…reputation suffers.’

3.4. Good and bad practices

As part of our methodology an immediate reality check for validation purposes was performed in a 10-minute session at the end of each interview. The aim was to let the respondents

0.18

0.09

0.11

Benefits

Attributes

Multimedia Support

Corporate support for virtual work

Increased project control

Values

c c

0.24

Fa

Management and multimedia support & Clear communication rules

Fig. 5. Corporate support and rules can help to nurture the p

reflect on their answers and to define a number of good practices in the area of dispersed project work within their own company and context. We also asked them to list a number of practices that could be improved. Good practices mentioned include the experience of project managers with work in dispersed settings, the availability of technology support, and general corporate support. A manager stated for instance:

‘We are quite familiar with working in these kinds of virtual set-ups and we have normally quite clear assignments. We

0.10

Reputation

0.11

Clear ommuni-

ation rules

ster project conduct 46% of

276

31% of 276

10% of 329

Mentioned ≥ 14 times Mentioned ≥ 9 times Mentioned > 4 times

Number of links mentioned

roject manager's reputation via efficiency and control.

77R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79

have the technology in place. We do have a lot of experience with virtual work, because we work all over the world, in all the time zones, so people are actually quite experienced.’

Others mentioned a safe environment for information sharing, autonomy, usable tools and a nice environment for working virtually, such as ICT support and favorable travel arrangements. The specific good practices mentioned by the project managers are in line with the conditions that were valued through the laddering. When asked about areas for improvement, respondents addressed the same categories. Also with regard to improvement, the project managers in our sample specifically indicated technical support, experience in leading virtual teams, and overall corporate support as areas of concern. For example, a project manager states:

“We don't have at all a systematic approach to virtual teams. The company still is not fully abiding by those common processes and guidelines and not using the tool correctly… They are not using the full potential that is there. Many people are still waiting for those instructions and therefore, when they haven't been available, those people who would like to build a virtual team or start a virtual project, and they are a little bit hesitant.”

4. Conclusion and implications

The goal of this research was to gain a better understanding of the conditions project managers in dispersed settings perceive as relevant to get their work done. On the basis of our analysis, we derive a number of conditions that need to be fulfilled for successful project execution within dispersed project settings. These can be categorized into two main categories:

1. Communication/collaboration within the team: i.e., clear communication rules, openness, and trust.

2. Organizational support, i.e., multi-media and technical support and corporate support in terms of tools, infrastructure, policies, rewards, and incentive systems for dispersed work.

Rather than just asking what conditions they would need, we carefully linked these up to the needs and values of project managers by applying a Means-End Chain (MEC) analysis. The use of MEC enables us to understand motivations of project managers more clearly and ensures comparability of data. Project managers with experience in working in dispersed work settings value accomplishment as their most important justification for their work. Accomplishment is linked to performance as project managers are usually rewarded in global companies based on their results (see Shenhar and Dvir, 1996). A good reputation of a successful project and as a competent manager is another important value. The message of the good reputation from the rest of the organization is appreciation, which has been shown to be an internally motivating reward increasing perceived self- determination and efforts of employees towards task accomplish- ment (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Accomplishment and reputation

are important drivers for project managers also when they are involved with situations with a high degree of virtuality.

In order to accomplish their project goals our research indicates that managers need several conditions to be fulfilled. For example, managers need corporate support in order to be successful in the settings with high degrees of “virtuality” as well as suitable technical support. This is in line with virtual team literature that also mentions the importance of company support (Gibson and Cohen, 2003; Lipnack and Stamps, 2000; Montoya et al., 2009). Kayworth and Leidner (2000) suggest management should provide different kinds of computer mediated communi- cation systems as well as training and education to work with these technologies (see also Townsend et al., 1998). These prerequisites enable project managers to be more effective in dealing with the internal team dynamics within their dispersed teams. Trust among team members and clear communication rules are necessary in order to get the work done. Project managers perceive these conditions as vital for faster project conduct, increased project control and alignment of goals in the project. In addition, characteristics and competences of a project manager seem to play a role in successful task accomplishment.

Our findings confirm a number of success conditions that are currently listed in the growing literature on virtual team effectiveness. For example, the influence of trust and leadership practices on the performance of global projects has been confirmed in many studies (for example, Anantatmula and Thomas, 2010; Chen and Lee, 2007; Evaristo, 2003). By carefully linking the success conditions to the needs and values of experienced global project managers, we are able to get a more detailed overview. Current literature shows a large number of critical success factors. Our analysis shows that trust, clear communication, technical support and overall corporate support are the four most important conditions for getting the work done in virtual settings. Other factors that the literature suggests, however, were not directly perceived as important preconditions for team effectiveness in dispersed work settings. For instance, diversity mentioned in the literature as a source of miscommunication (cf. Hertel et al., 2005) was not directly mentioned by interviewees as a concern for project managers. Due to the MEC methodology we focused on individual values, which are based on organizational values. During the interviews we noticed that many of these project managers work in multiple teams, both virtual and co-located simultaneously, and they try to live up to the organizational cultural values present within their global firm. However, many of these values are based on traditional ways of working and often collocated ways of working. Therefore for these project managers to be rewarded and work on their reputation, it becomes important that they fit within the organizational values. Due to the fact that there are fewer possibilities in dispersed project teams to show accomplishment, to develop a social network, and work on your reputation, the main values of global virtual project managers are focused on accomplishing the work within the set requirements. As seen in our data, accomplishing the project goal might become even more important for global dispersed project managers than for project managers with co-located teams, in order to work conform the organizational cultural values of work. In the reality check of the MEC method, several project managers discussed the

78 R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79

aspect that the organizational culture is not always supporting global work and this might be reflected in the presented values in our data:

‘Company X does offer management tools, they do offer this video conferencing, teleconferencing and netmeetings et cetera, but people are still not, it's not their way of working. That's what fails. Maybe one limitation is also that people cannot think global.’

‘We have some culture and not with everybody, and how do you change the attitude and the culture… And of course I say that we have the technology in place, but maybe… the obstacle is again culture and attitude and changing your old habits, that's an obstacle.’

Many of the project managers viewed accomplishment as important as well as the value of reputation. Accomplishment was often related to visible outcomes of the project manager and to their own status and reputation in their company. This aspect can be related to literature that states that dispersed work is not only geographical distribution but also social distance in terms of status, and these two distances reinforce each other (Metiu, 2006).

Our research has some limitations. First, our MEC method- ology limits our ability to determine conclusively causality and the possibility of social desirability. Second, since we have only gathered data from global high technology companies, the ability to generalize across other organizations remains in question. Note that our results are based on the perspective of the project manager and are therefore limited to corporate projects rather than open-source ventures.

An important practical implication of our findings is that the organization of dispersed project teams could benefit from paying attention to the four main success conditions. Rather than focusing on various problem areas or organizing the project like any other kind of project, virtual settings may benefit from starting with the establishment of trust and clear communication rules. The activities of dispersed project teams should also be embedded in the organization and sufficient technical support should be offered. In spite of its limitations, the results provide further insight in the way global dispersed teams can be organized in order to fulfill the needs and values of senior project managers with the success of the project as the ultimate goal. A specific focus on trust, clear communication, technical and corporate support could serve as a useful check-list for the establishment of successful global dispersed projects.

References

Anantatmula, V., Thomas, M., 2010. Managing global projects: a structured approach for better performance. Project Management Journal 41, 60–72.

Andriessen, J.H.E., 2002. Group Work and Groupware: Understanding and Evaluating Computer Supported Interaction. Springer Verlag, London.

Andriessen, J.H.E., Vartiainen, M. (Eds.), 2006. Mobile Virtual work: A New Paradigm? Springer, Heidelberg.

Artto, K.A., Wikström, K., 2005. What is project business? International Journal of Project Management 23, 343–353.

Baker, G., 2002. The effects of synchronous collaborative technologies on decision making: a study of virtual teams. Information Resources Management Journal 15, 79–93.

Barinaga, E., 2007. ‘Cultural diversity’ at work: ‘national culture’ as a discourse organizing an international project group. Human Relations 60, 315–340.

Bell, B.S., Kozlowski, S.W.J., 2002. A typology of virtual teams. Implications for effective leadership. Group and Organization Management 27, 14–49.

Burgoon, J.K., Bonito, J.A., Ramirez Jr., A., Dunbar, N.E., Kam, K., Fischer, J., 2002. Testing the interactivity principle: effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication 52, 657–677.

Cha, S.E., Edmondson, A.C., 2006. When values backfire: leadership, attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organization. The Leadership Quarterly 17, 57–78.

Chen, S.H., Lee, H.T., 2007. Performance evaluation model for project managers using managerial practices. International Journal of Project Management 25, 543–551.

Chudoba, K.M., Wynn, E., Lu, M., Watson-Manheim, M.B., 2005. How virtual we are? Measuring virtuality and understanding its impacts in a global organization. Information Systems Journal 15, 279–306.

Cramton, C.D., Webber, S.S., 2005. Relationships among geographic dispersion, team processes, and effectiveness in software development work teams. Journal of Business Research 58, 758–765.

Davidow, W.H., Malone, M.S., 1992. The Virtual Corporation. Edward Burlingame Books/Harper Business, New York.

Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 2000. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11, 227–268.

Diallo, A., Thuillier, D., 2005. The success of international development projects, trust and communication: an African perspective. International Journal of Project Management 23, 237–252.

Duarte, D.L., Snyder, N.T., 1999. Mastering distributed teams. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Dubé, L., Paré, G., 2004. The multifaceted nature of distributed teams. In: Pauleen, D.J. (Ed.), Virtual Teams: Projects. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, Protocols and Processes, pp. 1–39.

Edmondson, A.C., Nembhard, I.M., 2009. Product development and learning in project teams: the challenges are the benefits. Journal of Product Innovation Management 26, 123–138.

Evaristo, R., 2003. The management of distributed projects across cultures. Journal of Global Information Management 11, 58–70.

Gibson, C.B., Cohen, S.G. (Eds.), 2003. Virtual teams that work. : Creating Conditions for Virtual Team Effectiveness. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Gibson, C.B., Gibbs, J.L., 2006. Unpacking the concept of virtuality: the effects of geographical dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 51, 451–495.

Griffith, T.L., Neale, M.A., 2001. Information processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual teams: from nascent knowledge to transactive memory. Research in Organizational Behavior, vol 23. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 379–421.

Grimshaw, D.J., Kwok, F.T.S., 1998. The business benefits of the virtual organization, In Gutman, J., 1982. A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46, 60–72.

Gutman, J., 1982. A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing 46 (2), 60–72.

Hertel, G., Geister, S., Konradt, U., 2005. Managing virtual teams: a review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review 15, 69–95.

Huemann, M., 2010. Considering human resource management when developing a project oriented company: case study of a telecommunication company. International Journal of Project Management 28, 361–369.

Jarvenpaa, S.L., Leidner, D.E., 1999. Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science 10, 791–815.

79R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79

Jarvenpaa, S.L., Knoll, K., Leidner, D.E., 1998. Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems 14, 26–64.

Karolak, D.W., 1998. Global Software Development: Managing Virtual Teams and their Environments. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA.

Kaulio, M.A., 2008. Project leadership in multi-project settings: findings from a critical incident study. International Journal of Project Management 26, 338–347.

Kayworth, T., Leidner, D., 2000. The global distributed manager: a prescription for success. European Management Journal 18 (2), 183–194.

Keegan, A.E., Den Hartog, D.N., 2004. Transformational leadership in a project based environment: a comparative study. International Journal of Project Management 22, 609–617.

Kuruppuarachchi, P.R., 2009. Virtual team concepts in projects: a case study. Project Management Journal 40, 19–33.

Lee-Kelley, L., Sankey, T., 2008. Global virtual teams for value creation and project success: a case study. International Journal of Project Management 26, 51–62.

Lipnack, J., Stamps, J., 2000. Virtual teams: people working across boundaries with technology, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York.

Martins, L.L., Gilson, L.L., Maynard, M.T., 2004. Virtual teams: what do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management 30, 805–835.

Maznevski, M.L., 1994. Understanding our differences: performance in decision- making groups with diverse members. Human Relations 47, 531–552.

Maznevski, M.L., Chudoba, K.M., 2000. Bridging space over time: global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science 11, 473–492.

McDonough, E.F., Kahn, K.B., Barczak, G., 2001. An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and collocated new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management 18, 110–120.

Metiu, A., 2006. Owning the code: status closure in distributed groups. Organization Science 17, 418–435.

Modig, N., 2007. A continuum of organizations formed to carry out projects: temporary and stationary organization forms. International Journal of Project Management 25, 807–814.

Montoya, M.M., Massey, A.P., Hung, Y.C., Crisp, C.B., 2009. Can you hear me now? Communication in virtual product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management 26, 139–155.

Nurmi, N., 2011. Coping with coping strategies: how distributed teams and their members deal with the stress of distance, time zones and culture. Stress and Health 27, 123–143.

O'Leary, M.B., Cummings, J.N., 2007. The spatial, temporal, and configura- tional characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly 31, 433–452.

Olson, J.C., Reynolds, T.J., 1983. Understanding consumer's cognitive structures: implications for advertising strategy. In: Percy, L., Woodside, A. (Eds.), Advertising and Consumer Psychology, 1. Lexington Books, Lexington, pp. 77–90.

Peter, J.P., Olson, J.C., 1987. Consumer behavior. Marketing Strategy Perspectives. Irwin, Illinois.

Powell, A., Piccoli, G., Ives, B., 2004. Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research. The Database for Advances in Information Systems 35, 6–36.

Rad, P.F., Levin, G., 2003. Achieving Project Management Success using Virtual Teams. Ross Publishing, Boca Raton, Florida.

Raghuram, S., Tuertscher, P., Garud, R., 2010. Mapping the field of virtual work: A cocitation analysis. Information Systems Research 21, 983–999.

Reynolds, T.J., Gutman, J., 1988. Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research 28, 11–31.

Richter, P., Meyer, J., Sommer, F., 2006. Well-being and stress in mobile and virtual work. In: Andriessen, J.H., Vartiainen, M. (Eds.), Mobile Virtual Work — A New Paradigm. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 231–252.

Rosenberg, M., 1956. Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 53, 367–372.

Schein, E.H., 1985. Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Schwartz, S.H., 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 1–65.

Schwartz, S.H., 1994. Beyond individualism/collectivism: new cultural di- mensions of values. In: Kim, U., Triandis, H., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S., Yoon, G. (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and Application. Sage, CA, pp. 85–119.

Schweitzer, L., Duxbury, L., 2010. Conceptualizing and measuring the virtuality of teams. Information Systems Journal 20, 267–295.

Sheard, A.G., Kakabdse, A.P., 2001. Key roles of the leadership landscape. Journal of Managerial Psychology 17, 129–144.

Shenhar, A., Dvir, D., 1996. Toward a typological theory of project management. Research Policy 25, 607–632.

Speier, C., Palmer, J., 1998. A definition of virtualness. In: Hoadley, E.D., Benbasat, I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth America's Conference on Information Systems, August 14–16. Baltimore, Maryland, pp. 571–573.

Thirty, M., Deguire, M., 2007. Recent developments in project-based organisations. International Journal of Project Management 25, 649–658.

Townsend, A.M., DeMarie, S.M., Hendrickson, A.R., 1998. Virtual teams: technology and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive 12, 17–29.

Turner, J.R., Huemann, M., Keegan, A.E., 2008. Human Resource Manage- ment in the Project-oriented Organization. PMI, Newton Square (PA).

Van der Vegt, G.S., Janssen, O., 2003. Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of Management 29, 729–751.

Watson-Manheim, M.B., Chudoba, K., Crowston, K., 2002. Discontinuities and continuities: a new way to understand virtual work. Information Technology & People 15, 191–209.

Wiesenfeld, B.M., Raghuram, S., Garud, R., 1999. Communication patterns as determinants of organizational identification in a virtual organization. Organization Science 10, 777–790.

Ziga-Viktorssen, A., Sundström, P., Enwall, M., 2006. Project overload: an exploratory study of work and management in multi-project settings. International Journal of Project Management 24, 385–394.

Zigurs, I., 2003. Leadership in virtual teams: oxymoron or opportunity? Organizational Dynamics 31, 339–351.