paper I want to fix it - clean it up -organize it and add

model of Collaborative Virtual Team Enviroment DRFT

1. Introduction

The motivation for this paper arose from challenges in conducting project management courses via an online platform to undergraduate and graduate students. Whether these students were undergraduates with limited work experience or graduate students with substantial work experience, the challenges were relatively similar – how do we effectively collaborate in an online environment to accomplish team assignments in the courses? It appeared that the majority of students approached these team assignments with a transactional focus rather than a collaborative focus and they usually proceeded with a form of ‘divide and conquer’ to complete the teamwork assignments in the course. This approach is not the most desirable of approaches given a project management environment and the need for collaboration on initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing a project. This transactional focus invariably resulted in team conflicts, missed deadlines, and/or poor performance.

After experiencing difficulties with the above challenge over the course of a few semesters, an attempt to discover and establish an effective collaborative virtual team environment was undertaken. The first intervention was to institute a requirement that all student teams host an initial video conference meeting, via an online platform of their choice, focused only on team introductions and professional relationship building prior to any discussion of team assignments. The teams were also required to post minutes of this meeting to their team homepage for review.

The goal of these initial meetings focused on establishing a collaborative atmosphere with open communications among team members. This intervention has been successful but it led to a desire to establish a more complete model for an effective collaborative virtual teamwork, hereby entitled, Collaborative Virtual Team Environment. A design science research approach will be used to explicate the requirements of this environment as well as to determine implementation and evaluation plans for the said environment, focusing on continuous improvement each semester in the courses of this researcher but potentially in courses taught at universities worldwide. “A design science approach places emphasis on achieving clarity in the goals and underlying theoretical constructs for a new artifact and carefully evaluating how well the new artifact meets those goals” (McLaren, Head, Yuan, & Chan, 2011).

When Steve Jobs was asked about teamwork in a 1995 interview, he shared a parable of rocks in a rock tumbler (Elmer-Dewitt, 2011). He told a story about a widowed neighbor that lived up the street from him when he was growing up. The neighbor showed Jobs how rocks were polished in a rock tumbler and in the interview he equated that example to how he envisions teams working together on projects (Elmer-Dewitt, 2011). Jobs said “… through that group of incredibly talented people bumping up against each other, having arguments, having fights sometimes, making some noise, and working together they polish each other and they polish the ideas, and what comes out are these really beautiful stones” (Elmer-Dewitt, 2011).

I believe that the most important takeaway from this story is not the parallel between rocks in a rock tumbler and team members on a team but rather the lesson of the liquid and grit. The man did not just put ordinary rocks in the tumbler, rather he “…put them in the can with a little bit of liquid and a little bit of grit powder…” (Elmer-Dewitt, 2011). It would be easy to overlook these simple ingredients – liquid and grit – however; those are the key ingredients that prevent the rocks from being ground into dust when tossed around in the tumbler overnight. The liquid and grit provides the buffer that allows the rocks to rub against each other without crumbling into dust. Drawing a parallel from this to people on teams, if people are placed together without ‘liquid and grit’, they will rub against each other and crush each other. What is the liquid and grit that empowers team members to successfully polish each other and navigate through the inevitable conflict that comes from working with others on a project?

I purport that the liquid and grit is the professional relationships built between team members working closely together. These professional relationships allow the team to navigate the inevitable conflict that comes with working as a team in order to produce team results.

Conflict among members of project teams is inevitable. Conflict must be handled in a manner that renders it productive, rather than destructive, to project success. This question is complicated further by the prevalence of virtual teams, as virtual team members do not have the opportunity to develop relationships organically by virtue of common location (Liao, 2017). Virtual team members must purposely seek out opportunities to build relationships. Is this happening? According to Kozlowski and Bell (2003), “the process of team development, and its resulting quality, is largely taken as a matter of faith – leaders and teams are expected to muddle through and figure it out. From an applied perspective, one can’t help but marvel at the magnitude of the lost opportunity to influence long-term team effectiveness” (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003, p. 345).

This problem is practice-inspired because it comes from the practice domain – university students and virtual project teams. If the university is to train the students to be effective in the virtual environment that is today’s project management environment, then the university must teach the students how to effectively function in a virtual team environment.

This problem is research ingrained because research has shown that positive team member relationships have a positive impact on team effectiveness. Fernandez and Jawadi (2015) stated that “high quality relationships have been identified as a key factor in enhanced team performance” (Bonet Fernandez & Jawadi, 2015) Virtual teams suffer from the lack of physical proximity that leads to organically developed relationships and this is a hindrance on the development of good team member relationships (Handy, 1995), (Townsend, DeMarie, & Hendrickson, 2000) Therefore, a substitute for this physical proximity and organically developed relationships needs to be established in order to facilitate strong team relationships.

2. Background

Virtual Teams

The body of research on relationship building on traditional collocated teams is expansive (Pauleen, 2003). However, increasingly project managers are finding themselves charged with managing a project team where either all or some of their team members are working at a location other than the project manager’s locale. “Virtual teams are here, and they are here to stay” (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). In a 2015 article by Keith Ferrazzi, published in Harvard Business Review, Ferrazzi stated, “When my firm, Ferrazzi Greenlight, recently surveyed 1,700 knowledge workers, 79% reported working always or frequently in dispersed teams” (Ferrazzi, 2014). There are many definitions of virtual teams with most definitions focusing on the dispersed locations and use of technology (Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004). For this study, virtual teams are defined as “teams whose members use technology to varying degrees in working across locational , temporal, and relational boundaries to accomplish an interdependent task” (Martins et al., 2004). Leadership on virtual teams requires a different mix of skills than those required of leaders on collocated teams (Pauleen, 2003). Virtual team leaders are challenged by having to essentially interpret personal and contextual signals from team members through the use of electronic communications with no visual cues or signals ("Global Work, Bridging Distance, Culture and Time," 1995).

Team Development and Team Building

Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006) make a distinction between team development and team building (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). They state that team building refers to formal efforts to make modifications to existing processes, whereas team development is a more informal process initiated by the team members to establish social structure and work processes that are effective for the team (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Research typically views team development as an initial forming process of a team built in reality, as teams are not always static in membership, team development is a continuous process over the life of the team (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).

Hackman (1976 & 1992) focused on the importance of factors that are considered “glue” that bonds team members to each other (Hackman, 1992). This can be related back to the story about polishing rocks and the effects of liquid and grit. There must be something that bonds the team members together, and this paper purports that this bonding agent is the professional relationship built between the members of the team. Bell and Kozlowski (2002) also mention this bonding as they state that “team orientation represents the affective bonds that connect members to the team and its mission” (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). More recent literature purports that team building is comprised of four distinct approaches that may be combined (Aga, Noorderhaven, & Vallejo, 2016). “These approaches are goal-setting, developing interpersonal relations, clarifying roles, and employing problem-solving techniques” (Aga et al., 2016).

Bruce Tuckman introduced the stages of team development model in 1965, identifying that teams go through four distinct phases known as forming, storming, norming, and performing. His theory stated that teams must go through all of these phases in order to become a cohesive, productive team. Additionally, he stressed that the path is not always sequential and that teams often fall back into earlier phases before progressing forward. (note: I tried to find his seminal work in the USF database but after an hour I gave up to move forward). Each of these phases includes some amount of relationship building, with the greatest amount happening in the forming phase. I purport that if a team spends adequate time in the forming phase, establishing relationships, that their journey through storming and norming will be brief and they will move on to performing much faster than if they neglect to take the time and effort to adequately navigate the forming phase.

Teams progress through these stages rather organically on collocated teams as team members interact spontaneously throughout the day, however, leaders must take a more active role in regards to relationship development on virtual teams where spontaneous communication is rare and team communication exists over computer-mediated communication (Liao, 2017). “The importance of relationship building in a virtual environment and methods to build relationships are significant factors when practitioners engage in virtual work” (Pauleen, 2003). There have been numerous studies on relationship building in traditional collocated teams (Pauleen, 2003) and organizations spend a lot of money on team building training and exercises, yet most of this training has been focused on collocated teams. The prevalence and reliance on virtual teams is growing and it is vital for researchers to gander a comprehensive understanding of the importance of team building and its relationship to project success.

3. Proposed Model of Collaborative Virtual Team Environment

The following model of a collaborative virtual team environment is being proposed, will be extrapolated, and evaluated using rigorous design science research methods.

4. Research Questions

The first research question is an exploratory one in which I will seek to determine and rank in terms of importance the components of an effective virtual team environment.

RQ1: What are the important interventions, KPI’s, and OKR’s required to create a collaborative virtual team environment ranked in terms of impact and feasibility?

The second research question is a prescriptive one in which I will implement the model in my courses and evaluate the effectiveness.

RQ2: How effective is the collaborative virtual team environment on improving team cohesion, team commitment, and team collaborative culture, when implemented in the university classroom setting?

5. Methodology

Research Question #1:

Graduate Students enrolled in MG 670-I03 (Leading High Performance Teams) during the fall 2018 semester are serving as Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to assist in answering research question number 1. They are tasked to conduct research in teams on proposed virtual team interventions in order to establish KPI’s and OKR’s for each of the proposed interventions. Their research assignments appear below.

Assignment #1: MG 670-I03 : Virtual Team Environment Research Paper

There are six teams and six interventions so each team will research one of them.  The selection process will be handled on a first come, first served basis and the selection will be handled based on replies to the Announcement Post. Please do not begin the paper until you receive confirmation that your team was assigned that intervention.  Once you have received confirmation, please complete your paper on the intervention of choice by your team.  

The team will research and write up a paper meeting the following goals:

1. Explain the intervention

2. Explain the KPI(s) that are expected as a result of the intervention

1. These would be the substantive outcome results attributable to the intervention

3. List and Explain the specific OKR’s (steps to the KPI(s) that will be required

4. Discuss any interventions other than those six listed here that your team feels should be considered in determining an effective virtual team environment.

Team Intervention #1:                   Initial Video Meeting

Note: One of the OKRs should be the video platform for the meeting

Team Intervention #2:                   Daily Virtual Standup Meeting

Note: One of the OKRs should be the video platform for the meeting

Team Intervention #3:                   Weekly Virtual Video “Coffee Break”

Note: One of the OKRs should be the video platform for the meeting and you should also determine a more suitable name than “Coffee Break”

Team Intervention #4:                   Team Collaborative Communication Environment

Note: This includes but is not limited to file sharing, chat, communication guidelines for when to use what form of communication (phone call, email, chat, group message, conference call, video meeting, etc.  This environment may also include a project management tool. 

Team Intervention #5:                   Project Management Software Tool

 Note: This may include a team collaborative environment.

Team Intervention #6:                   Team Personality Assessment

Note: This should include an ‘expert’ to conduct and explain the assessment depending on the tool or tools chosen. 

Once this exercise is complete, I will attach all team papers to the module discussion board and each team member will be expected to individually rank the impact and feasibility of each of the interventions. 

Assignment #2: Ranking of Interventions:

Review each team paper and then, based on your expert opinion, rank the interventions in order based on 1) impact on team cohesion, commitment, and collaborative culture and 2) feasibility.

The above assignments are intended to answer research question number one. The student submissions will be reviewed and results will be compiled and analyzed with the intention of establishing a fully built functional model of a collaborative virtual team environment.

Research Question #2:

The established model will be implemented in a classroom and its use will be monitored for its effectiveness in improving team cohesion, team commitment, and team collaborative environment using pre and post surveys. This will be an iterative process with updates each semester focused on fine tuning the model.

6. Measurement

There have been many attempts to measure team performance and team project success but I intend to measure this by measuring team cohesion, team commitment, and team collaborative climate. According to Huang et. al (2003), “Team cohesion refers to the mutual attraction of team members and the closeness that team members feel towards each other” (Huang, Wei, Watson, & Tan, 2003). Accordingly, they state that “team commitment refers to the team spirit, a sense of loyalty and dedication to a team” and “team collaboration climate refers to the degree to which a team can work well together” (Huang et al., 2003). The intention is to administer a survey to the student teams at the beginning of the semester, before introducing the model, and at the end of the semester after they have worked with the model for the entire semester.

7. Data Collection

The student survey, administered at the beginning and end of the semester, will contain the following questions based on Huang et al (2003):

Questions measuring team cohesion (Seashore, 1954).

1. Do you feel that you are really a part of your student work team?

(1) Really a part of my work team. (2) Included in most ways. (3) Included in some ways, but not in others. (4) Don’t feel I really belong too much. (5) Don’t feel I really belong at all.

2. If you had a chance to do the same kind of work in another student work team, how would you feel about moving to another team?

(1) Would want very much to stay where I am. (2) Would rather stay where I am than move. (3) Would make no difference to me. (4) Would rather move than stay where I am. (5) Would want very much to move.

3. How does your work team compare with other student teams on each of the following points?

(1) Very much better to (5) Very much worse. a. The way people get along together. b. The way people work together. c. The way people help each other.

Questions measuring team commitment (Larson and LaFasto, 1989). (1) False to (4) True.

1. Achieving our team goal(s) is a higher priority than any individual objective.

2. Team members believe that personal success is achieved through the accomplishment of the team goal(s).

3. Team members are willing to devote whatever effort is necessary to achieve team success.

Questions measuring collaborative climate (Larson and LaFasto, 1989). (1) False to (4) True.

1. We trust each other sufficiently to accurately share information, perceptions and feedback.

2. We help each other by compensating for individual shortcomings.

3. We can trust each other to act completely and responsibly in performing our individual tasks.

8. Data Analysis

An ANOVA analysis will be conducted comparing the results of the pre and post surveys to compare the before and after results to gauge the effectiveness of the model.

(What else would you write in this section?)

9. Future Research

(I am not sure what to put here)

References

Aga, D. A., Noorderhaven, N., & Vallejo, B. (2016). Transformational leadership and project success: The mediating role of team-building. International Journal of Project Management, 34, 806-818. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.012

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A Typology of Virtual Teams: Implications for Effective Leadership, 14.

Bonet Fernandez, D. B., & Jawadi, N. (2015). Virtual R&D Project Teams: From E-Leadership To Performance. Journal of Applied Business Research, 31(5), 1693.

Elmer-Dewitt, P. (2011, 2011). Steve Jobs: The parable of the stones. Fortune.

Ferrazzi, K. (2014). Getting Virtual Teams Right, 120.

Global Work, Bridging Distance, Culture and Time. (1995). Behavioral Science(2), 160.

Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology., Vol. 3, 2nd ed. (pp. 199-267). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Handy, C. (1995). Trust and the Virtual Organization. Harvard Business Review, 73(3), 40-50.

Huang, W. W., Wei, K. K., Watson, R. T., & Tan, B. C. (2003). Supporting virtual team-building with a GSS: an empirical investigation, 359.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, R. J. Klimoski, W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 12. (pp. 333-375). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x

Liao, C. (2017). Leadership in virtual teams: A multilevel perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 27, 648-659. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.010

Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual Teams: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here?, 805.

McLaren, T. S., Head, M. M., Yuan, Y., & Chan, Y. E. (2011). A Multilevel Model for Measuring Fit between a Firm's Competitive Strategies and Informatioin Systems Capabilities. 35, 909-A910.

Pauleen, D. J. (2003). An Inductively Derived Model of Leader-Initiated Relationship Building with Virtual Team Members. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(3), 227-256.

Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (2000). Virtual Teams: Technology and the Workplace of the Future, 69.