Content uploaded by Benson Rosen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Benson Rosen on Apr 01, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Managing the life cycle of
virtual teams
Stacie A. Furst, Martha Reeves, Benson Rosen, and Richard S. Blackburn
Executive Overview
In the fast-paced, technology-driven 21
st
century, virtual project teams represent a
growing response to the need for high-quality, low-cost, rapid solutions to complex
organizational problems. Virtual project teams enable organizations to pool the talents
and expertise of employees (and non-employees) by eliminating time and space barriers.
Yet, there is growing evidence that virtual teams fail more often than they succeed. To
understand the factors that contribute to virtual team effectiveness, we tracked six virtual
project teams from a large food distribution company from inception to project delivery.
We identified factors at each stage of the virtual-team life cycle that affected team
performance. These results provide specific examples of what managers can do, at
various points in time, to increase a virtual team’s chances to fully develop and
contribute to firm performance.
........................................................................................................................................................................
FOODCO* has grown dramatically over the last
several years as the result of numerous acquisi-
tions. One of the nation’s largest food distributors,
FOODCO has more than 20 operating companies
located throughout the United States. To maxi-
mize long-term performance, FOODCO executives
wanted to tap into the knowledge and expertise
of employees located throughout the newly ex-
panded company. In particular, executives wanted
to encourage the sharing of best practices across
operating companies, streamline work processes,
prepare managers for promotion, and develop a
unified culture. To address these issues intelli-
gently, quickly, and effectively, FOODCO created
virtual project teams.
Virtual project teams represent a recent re-
sponse to the demand for high-quality, rapid solu-
tions to complex issues such as those faced by
FOODCO. Virtual project teams include individu-
als who are geographically dispersed and interact
primarily through telecommunications and infor-
mation technologies to accomplish specific objec-
tives within specified timeframes.
1
Assignments
for these teams might include designing new prod-
ucts, developing strategies, and revising operating
procedures. Virtual project teams allow organiza-
tions to pool the talents and expertise of employ-
ees regardless of employee location, overcoming
time and distance barriers to accomplish critical
tasks quickly and effectively.
But simply establishing virtual project teams
does not guarantee success. In fact, virtual teams
are often less effective than face-to-face teams on
many outcome measures.
2
Virtual project teams
can experience difficulties at every stage of their
development. Improved understanding of how vir-
tual project teams develop and mature will provide
managers with important insights that might in-
crease a team’s contributions to firm performance.
The authors were able to follow six virtual
project teams at FOODCO from inception through
project delivery to assess how teams developed
and to determine what factors contributed to per-
formance at each stage of the project-team life
cycle. We surveyed and interviewed team mem-
bers throughout an eight-month project period and
gathered information on how top executives at
FOODCO and outside experts evaluated each
team’s deliverables. Our data provide useful in-
sights about virtual project team development, the
challenges encountered at various points in team
life cycles, and suggestions for overcoming these
challenges. We discuss the implications of our
findings for organizations planning to adopt or
currently using virtual project teams. We also offer
* FOODCO is a pseudonym being used to protect the ano-
nymity of the company.
姝Academy of Management Executive, 2004, Vol. 18, No. 2
........................................................................................................................................................................
6
specific recommendations for coaching virtual
teams at each stage of their life cycle.
The Emergence of Virtual Teams
Globalization and technological advancements
have led to an increase in virtual team use over the
last decade. Estimates suggest that in the US
alone, as many as 8.4 million employees are mem-
bers of one or more virtual teams or groups.
3
Nu-
merous studies of virtual teams document how
they operate and how they compare to traditional,
face-to-face teams. For example, The Executive has
published several articles discussing the birth of
virtual teams as an alternative work form, the ad-
vantages and disadvantages of virtual work, and
the specific challenges confronting virtual teams.
4
Virtual teams afford many advantages to organ-
izations, including increased knowledge sharing
and employee job satisfaction and commitment, as
well as improved organizational performance.
5
However, virtual teams can also face a number of
unique challenges that often prevent them from
obtaining successful outcomes. Broadly, these
challenges include (1) logistical problems, such as
communicating and coordinating work across time
and space, (2) interpersonal concerns, such as es-
tablishing effective working relationships with
team members in the absence of frequent face-to-
face communication, and (3) technology issues,
such as identifying, learning, and using technolo-
gies most appropriate for certain tasks.
6
There is an abundance of advice to managers on
how to motivate virtual teams to high levels of
performance. Some authors encourage managers
to help virtual teams draft mission statements, set
goals, and coordinate their work. Others empha-
size the importance of teambuilding exercises to
create a team identity and strengthen interper-
sonal relationships. Much of this advice is based
on single observations or laboratory studies with
student virtual teams. Our goal is to understand how
virtual teams of real employees develop through ev-
ery phase of a team life cycle from team formation
through product delivery. Our focus is on helping
managers understand the special challenges that
virtual project teams confront at each stage of devel-
opment and how to time intervention strategies so
that teams can make smooth transitions.
The Life Cycle of Virtual Project Teams
Teams are more effective when members can com-
bine their individual talents, skills, and experi-
ences via appropriate working relationships and
processes.
7
Two models that describe how teams
evolve through this process have been proposed by
Tuckman (1965) and Gersick (1988).
8
Tuckman’s Stage Model of Development
Based on an extensive analysis of groups located
in one place, Tuckman identified four distinct
stages of team development: forming, storming,
norming, and performing. During the forming
stage, team members share information about
themselves and their task explicitly through dis-
cussions or implicitly through non-verbal cues,
such as status symbols or physical traits. Ideally,
team members also establish trust, clarify group
goals, and develop shared expectations in this
stage. Efforts to resolve these issues often surface
differences of opinions, and in the storming stage,
conflicts emerge as team members work to identify
appropriate roles and responsibilities. Groups
able to resolve conflicts move to the norming
stage. In this stage, teams recognize and agree on
ways of working together, strengthen relation-
ships, and solidify understanding of member obli-
gations, all of which increase levels of trust, mis-
sion clarity, and coordination. Finally, teams reach
the performing stage during which team members
work toward project completion, actively helping
and encouraging each other.
Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Model
Gersick examined the impact of deadline pressures
on the development processes of work teams. She
described a “punctuated equilibrium”model of de-
velopment in which a team’s evolution is marked by
two periods of stability—Phase I and Phase II—punc-
tuated by abrupt changes at the project midpoint
that occurs halfway to the deadline.
9
Phase I begins
with the first team meeting and continues until the
team is halfway to a project’s deadline. During Phase
I, teams try to establish a working agenda and to
develop norms that guide early project efforts. These
activities parallel Tuckman’s forming, storming, and
norming stages. At the project midpoint, a transition
occurs as teams assess the norms and assumptions
set during Phase 1. Teams dissatisfied with their
progress may seek advice from an outside leader or
facilitator in order to develop more effective norms.
Teams satisfied with their performance maintain the
status quo. With a successful transition, team mem-
bers focus on their performance for the duration of
the project (Phase II). This transition is usually fol-
lowed by a burst of activity to insure that the team
meets the deadline with an acceptable outcome.
Some evidence shows that virtual teams evolve
through processes similar to those described by
2004 7Furst, Reeves, Rosen, and Blackburn
Tuckman and Gersick, although differences in the
speed and pattern of development appear to ex-
ist.
10
These findings provide some clues that the
evolution of virtual project teams may be more
complex and challenging than for co-located
teams. For instance, reliance on electronic commu-
nication may slow the establishment of trust, limit
conflict resolution, promote free riding, and inhibit
team synergy and performance. Similarly, it may
be more difficult for virtual project teams to (re)as-
sess their progress, reflect on collective work eth-
ics, and recommit to task completion within desig-
nated time frames, as described by the punctuated
equilibrium model. These issues, which we detail
in the next section, are summarized in Table 1.
The Challenges Associated with Virtual Team
Development
Forming
In co-located teams, face-to-face interactions dur-
ing the early stages of a project provide opportu-
nities for building relationships based on common
interests and permit individuals to analyze their
colleagues’ trustworthiness based on observation
and conversation. Developing high-quality rela-
tionships is more difficult and takes longer when
team members are geographically dispersed be-
cause reliance on electronic communications often
diminishes communication frequency.
11
Proximity
enables team members to engage in informal work
and non-work related conversations that can occur
over coffee, at the water cooler, or during lunch.
12
More frequent interaction increases opportunities
to break the ice, establish lines of communication,
and identify points of similarity, all of which are
critical for successful team formation.
Reliance on electronic communications also
increases the potential for faulty first impressions
and erroneous stereotypes.
13
In the absence of vi-
sual or audio cues provided by some technologies,
team members may develop incorrect stereotypes
based on geographic and cultural differences,
or differences in functional expertise. These
mistaken stereotypes or presumed differences
between team members can undermine relation-
ship-building efforts.
14
In particular, teams may
struggle to form a collective identity that promotes
a shared commitment to a common goal.
15
Successful navigation through the forming stage
requires that team members establish a sense of
trust.
16
In face-to-face teams, trust develops based
on social and emotional attachments. In virtual
teams, trust develops based on more identifiable
actions as timely information sharing, appropriate
responses to electronic communications, and keep-
ing commitments to virtual teammates.
17
These ac-
tions signal that team members are competent and
Table 1
Stages of Virtual Project Team Development
Model
Tuckman:
Gersick:
Forming Storming Norming
Midpoint
Performing
Phase II
Phase I
Transition
Description of
Team
Behavior
During Each
Stage
Team members get to
know each other,
exchange information
about themselves and
the task at hand,
establish trust among
group members, and
clarify group goals and
expectations
Similarities and differences
are revealed and
conflicts surface as the
group attempts to
identify appropriate roles
and responsibilities
among the members
Team members recognize
and agree on ways of
sharing information and
working together;
relationships are
strengthened, and team
members agree on member
obligations and team
strategy
Team members work
toward project
completion, actively
helping and
encouraging each other
Challenges to
Virtual
Teams
Fewer opportunities for
informal work- and
non-work-related
conversations; risk of
making erroneous
stereotypes in the
absence of complete
information; trust
slower and more
difficult to develop
Reliance on less rich
communication channels
may exacerbate conflicts
by provoking
misunderstandings; ease
of withdrawing
behaviors; diversity of
work contexts; reliance
on an emergent or
assigned team leader
Difficulty in developing
norms around modes of
communication, speed, and
frequency of responding,
and commitment to use
special software
Vulnerability to competing
pressures from local
assignments,
frustrations over free-
riding or non-committed
teammates, and
communication
discontinuities due to
asynchronous
communication
8 MayAcademy of Management Executive
want to help the team, but they take time to occur
in the virtual environment.
Storming
As table 1 notes, past research on co-located teams
suggests that disagreement and conflict character-
ize the storming stage of team development. In the
virtual environment, the use of communication
technologies may prolong these conflicts. Without
the benefit of the subtle social cues associated
with face-to-face communications (body language,
tone of voice, and facial expressions), misunder-
standings can occur more readily.
18
Electronic
communication can exacerbate conflict when team
members simply refuse to respond to electronic
messages. This explains why virtual teams, partic-
ularly those working on complex, non-technical
issues, take longer to reach consensus on team
process issues than do co-located teams.
19
The presumed diversity of work settings can also
inhibit conflict resolution for virtual teams. For ex-
ample, in some work settings, technology and sup-
port staff are available to support virtual teams. In
less advanced settings, even minor technical prob-
lems can be disruptive for teams and team mem-
bers. Similarly, in some settings, managers or
team members may view virtual team participa-
tion as a high priority, while others may view it as
a distraction from more immediate concerns. Team
members in different work settings can form differ-
ent expectations regarding how to coordinate work
and accomplish team objectives.
20
In the storming stage, virtual project team spon-
sors can appoint team leaders to help minimize
conflicts that can occur over role assignments.
When leadership selection is based on the skills
critical for virtual team success, including conflict
management, virtual teams are more likely to sur-
vive the storming stage.
21
However, self-managed
virtual project teams are created without a formal
leader, and other teams are formed with a mis-
placed emphasis on a leader’s technical as op-
posed to interpersonal skills. In such cases, the
emergence of an informal or social leader may be
an agonizingly slow process. And, if virtual teams
are low in trust, the absence of an emergent or
formal leader can have serious consequences for
later team performance.
22
Norming
Table 1 shows that in the norming stage of devel-
opment, virtual teams work to strengthen relation-
ships, solidify norms around team processes, and
reach consensus regarding obligations, timeta-
bles, and deadlines. These efforts mirror the ac-
tivities that teams may engage in at Gersick’s
“midpoint transition.” At this point, teams assess
whether their work processes have been effective
or if they need to be revised. Special challenges
confronting virtual teams in the norming stage in-
clude coordinating work, developing a shared un-
derstanding around modes of communication, and
the speed and frequency of responding.
Virtual teams must establish norms governing
both work processes and communication content.
Agreements on timetables and individual areas of
responsibility are essential for virtual team effec-
tiveness.
23
Structured schedules and timelines en-
able virtual team members to coordinate work
across time zones and to manage variations in
team members’“local” work schedules and de-
mands. Working virtually also requires keeping all
members informed. Unfortunately, some members
may initially lack the discipline to follow virtual
team agreements with respect to information shar-
ing. For example, phone calls and emails between
a subset of team members may feel comfortable
and appear efficient but could prove to be self-
defeating when other members are deprived of
critical information or made to feel like second-class
team members.
24
Creating new habits around the
use of shareware and other technology platforms
which allow members to archive documents and use
message boards are among the challenges facing
virtual teams during the norming stage.
Norms must also address the quality and can-
didness of communication. In any team, members
may be reluctant to share creative but potentially
divisive ideas with their teammates. In the virtual
context, it is not easy to test the waters, gauge
potential reactions, and/or modify ideas based on
the subtle feedback often available in co-located
teams. Virtual team members may also withhold
message postings critical of teammate sugges-
tions to spare others from embarrassment. Thus,
norms that require complete information sharing
have the paradoxical effect of making virtual team
members more cautious when it comes to publicly
sharing untested ideas or offering criticisms of oth-
ers.
25
Clearly, establishing trust in earlier stages of
team development is a necessary condition for so-
lidifying these kinds of norms at this stage.
Performing
The performing stage of development requires that
teams effectively collect and share information,
integrate members’ inputs, look for creative solu-
tions to problems, and prepare deliverables for
outside sponsors. At this stage, virtual team mem-
2004 9Furst, Reeves, Rosen, and Blackburn
bers are able to collaborate and sustain a task
focus across multiple assignments.
26
This is
“crunch time” as teams become aware of impend-
ing deadlines and increase their activity to ensure
that the deadline is met.
Maintaining team performance and synergy dur-
ing this stage is particularly challenging for vir-
tual project teams. Virtual team members can face
competing pressures from local assignments, frus-
trations over free-riding teammates, and commu-
nication problems associated with asynchronous
communication. Without a formal leader to main-
tain team morale and motivation, virtual team
members may lose focus. Failure to meet dead-
lines, poorly written reports, and ill-conceived rec-
ommendations may have serious career conse-
quences for all concerned. Hence, the performing
stage of team development can be a period of great
satisfaction and/or stress.
The experiences of virtual project teams
throughout their life cycles are more complex and
challenging when compared to face-to-face project
teams. For managers charged with supporting vir-
tual project teams, additional insights may be
gained from studying multiple “real life” virtual
teams as they move through their life cycles. Of
specific interest are the factors associated with
performance effectiveness at each stage of team
development.
FOODCO: A Longitudinal Study of Virtual Project
Teams
To learn more about how virtual project teams
develop, we followed six virtual project teams from
FOODCO, one of the nation’s leading food service
distributors. The six project teams were formed as
part of an Executive Leadership Institute (ELI) com-
missioned by FOODCO’s top executives at a major
southeastern university in the US. FOODCO exec-
utives requested that a key component of the ELI
be projects requiring participants to work in cross-
disciplinary virtual project teams addressing busi-
ness issues that executives deemed “critical” to
company performance. ELI administrators as-
signed four to five participants to each project
team, ensuring that each team had cross-func-
tional representation and included at least one
participant with expertise relevant to the issue
under investigation. Team assignments, listed in
Table 2, required the collection of archival data,
interviews with key employees in the company,
analysis and synthesis of this information, and the
development of recommendations and presenta-
tions for these projects. A complete description of
the ELI goals and objectives, the virtual team as-
signments, and the methodology used to assess
the evolution of virtual teams is provided in the
Appendix.
The project design allowed team members to
work briefly face-to-face during each of three res-
idency periods prior to the project presentations.
However, the majority of their work was necessar-
ily completed while team members worked in their
home offices. Technology available to the teams
included phone, email, fax, conference calling, and
other resources necessary to work collaboratively.
FOODCO assigned a senior sponsor to each vir-
tual team to assist in the project. Sponsors were
company executives who had a vested interest in
seeing the team succeed and were willing to help
obtain needed resources, overcome organizational
barriers, and provide guidance on how to ap-
proach and complete the team’s work.
27
Teams
were instructed to initiate contact with their senior
sponsors, as needed, throughout the eight-month
project period. Sponsors would not do a team’s
work nor be responsible for the quality of the
team’s deliverables.
Next, we summarize our survey and interview
findings for each time period.
The Virtual Team Life Cycle
Time 1: Forming—Unbridled Optimism
During the first residency period, team members’
perceptions of the likelihood of team success re-
flected a sense of unbridled optimism, which is
also characteristic of most non-virtual work teams.
Team members were able to meet briefly with their
project teammates, and survey results following
these early meetings suggested that teams started
Table 2
Project Team Assignments
Team Name Project Objective
1 ACQUIRE To develop an integration strategy
for acquisitions
2 ITECH To determine how to efficiently
transfer information technology
from one subsidiary company to
other parts of the firm
3 TRANSFER To determine how to transfer best
practices from one division of the
company to another
4 AP To streamline the accounts payable
process
5 COMM To conduct a corporate
communications audit
6 CAREER To develop career paths for specific
jobs
10 MayAcademy of Management Executive
on an equal footing. There were no differences in
team members’ initial assessments of their time
available to work on the project, their comfort with
technology, and their confidence in working virtu-
ally. Perceptions regarding the meaningfulness of
their assignment, the support for the project in
their local offices, and the availability of resources
to carry out the project also did not differ.
Team members felt confident that they could
meet the desired performance goals despite the
nature of the virtual task. Responses to open-
ended questions illustrated invariably high levels
of optimism regarding how easily team members
expected to complete their projects and how well
they would work together. Some representative
comments included:
“I believe we have a great team and will work
well together. We all understand the impor-
tance of the project and intend to take it seri-
ously.” (ACQUIRE team member)
“I feel the team will work well together, and I
expect us to be very effective.” (COMM team
member)
“I think the team will work very well together.
We all agree on the substance and the goal.”
(CAREER team member)
Time 2: Storming—Reality Shock
A second survey was administered early in the
second residency, approximately two months later.
At this time, several teams reported having spent
little, if any time working on their virtual team
projects since their initial meeting. Other teams
reported spending several hours a week on their
projects. Asked to describe which stage of devel-
opment best characterized their team at Time 2,
one team reported that they had already reached
the performing stage (“Team members are clear
about their responsibilities, and we are making
excellent progress”). Other teams felt they were
still in the forming stage (“We’re just getting
started”).
At Time 2, we noted several differences between
team members’ perceptions of mission clarity,
team trust and support, involvement of senior
sponsors, and productivity. Most teams had not yet
identified a leader by this point in the program.
Some teams neglected boundary management is-
sues—failing to keep sponsors informed of prob-
lems or developing strategies for using sponsors to
assist with resource acquisition, for instance. One
team member, indicating that his team had been
delayed by the absence of senior sponsor input, re-
marked, “Due to other business problems, our senior
sponsor has been unavailable. This has made it dif-
ficult for us to get a clear focus on the project.”
More than half of the program participants indi-
cated that their teams had encountered some
difficulties working on their project in the virtual
environment between Times 1 and 2. Lack of com-
mitment from some team members became evident
at this point as several teams reported occurrences
of “free riding.” While it is not uncommon for mem-
bers of co-located teams to express concern over
some team members not doing “their fair share,”
the frustrations that our virtual team members ex-
pressed with non-performers appeared amplified
because team members could not directly observe
or influence one another’s behavior. Specific com-
ments reflected four primary issues with which
some groups had struggled: establishing leader-
ship roles, setting direction, coordinating work,
and building commitment to the task. Comments
in these areas included,
“No one has taken a leadership role. We have
not made the project the priority that it de-
serves.” (ITECH team member)
“Team members’ day-to-day tasks are being
used as an excuse to avoid doing the project.”
(ITECH team member)
“It has been difficult to get all members to
attend each conference call. Out of 5 calls
there has not been perfect attendance yet.”
(AP team member)
These comments reflect a variety of issues im-
peding trust-building and commitment. To their
credit, many teams began to address these issues
during the second ELI residence period. The oppor-
tunity for face-to-face interaction allowed some
teams to “clear the air” and deal with passive and
destructive individual and team behaviors. Reso-
lution of team issues provided a basis for the es-
tablishment of team norms, reflecting an example
of “punctuation” where some teams discussed and
changed their work processes.
Time 3: Norming—Refocus and Recommit
By Time 3 (during the third residency period, ap-
proximately mid-way through the project life cy-
cle), most teams recognized the need for reaching
agreement on how they would operate going for-
ward. Teams had revisited (and reinforced) exist-
ing norms or had established new norms regard-
2004 11Furst, Reeves, Rosen, and Blackburn
ing information collection, document sharing, task
responsibilities, acceptable attendance at confer-
ence calls, and team commitment. Teams dis-
cussed ways in which members could be held
more accountable for timely delivery of project
assignments and openly confronted problems that
might interfere with the completion of their
projects. Teams also expressed some regret about
their initial passivity, lack of initiative, and delays
in collecting information.
Our survey and interview data at this point sug-
gested that teams now differed with respect to
perceived levels of team trust, sponsor support,
and team performance (the percentage of work
completed to date). For example, several teams
reported high levels of trust in their teammates,
while others reported minimal intra-team trust. At
Time 3, the ACQUIRE and AP teams reported mak-
ing the most progress, indicating that they had
completed more than half of their projects. ITECH
members reported making the least amount of
progress on their assignment, having completed
only a quarter of their planned work.
We used team-member perceptions of progress
toward project completion as a proxy for team per-
formance and examined what factors measured
at Time 2 predicted team performance at Time 3.
Results indicated that progress at Time 3 was as-
sociated with greater levels of communication,
knowledge sharing, and confidence in performing
the task at Time 2. Participant comments indicated
that several teams struggled with issues of commit-
ment and accountability during the norming stage
that likely inhibited their progress. Developing
norms required each team member to fulfill his/her
assigned role, share important information, and
meet deadlines. A majority of comments reflected the
desire for greater commitment to the project, more
discipline in working on the project, and better time
management, communication, and coordination. Be-
low are several illustrative comments:
“Virtual teaming is something that requires
discipline.” (ACQUIRE team member)
“We need to develop a sense of urgency.”
(ITECH team member)
“It is difficult to get people to do what they
say.” (TRANSFER team member)
“You must make firm commitments to specific
time schedules.” (CAREER team member)
These observations prompted some team mem-
bers to increase their commitment levels and their
communications with one another. When asked
“What additional changes, if any, do you need to
make to deliver an outstanding project?” many
participants reported the need to develop a greater
sense of urgency about the project, to speed up their
work, and to communicate responsibilities more ex-
plicitly. Representative comments included:
“We may need to buckle down to get to work.
Devoting the necessary time to the project has
it challenges.” (CAREER team member)
“We really need to communicate each team
member’s responsibilities” (ACQUIRE team
member)
“We need to refocus our energy on moving
forward.” (COMM team member)
Time 4: Performing—A (Sometimes Mad) Dash to
the Finish
At Time 4, differences among teams emerged with
respect to levels of team commitment, sponsor in-
volvement, coordination, intra-team trust, and
member “loafing.” During the final week of the ELI,
the teams presented their project findings and rec-
ommendations to the other ELI participants, seven
senior FOODCO executives, including the CEO,
CFO, and president, and five faculty members.
These twelve non-participants evaluated each
project for content, quality, and anticipated effec-
tiveness. Aggregated team scores from these ob-
servations provided the performance data used to
assess how a variety of factors affected team
effectiveness.
Project team effectiveness as measured above
was found to be a function of team members’ per-
ceptions of the availability of resources at Time 1.
Teams that perceived greater amounts of resource
availability at the onset of their projects performed
better at the end of the project. At Time 2, teams
with greater mission clarity, more time to examine
work process effectiveness, and higher perceived
levels of sponsor support were more effective at
Time 4. At Time 3, none of the variables we exam-
ined predicted team performance at Time 4.
At Time 4, we also asked participants to reflect
on their experiences and to consider what they had
learned from their virtual projects. Responses sug-
gest that the teams clearly underestimated the
challenges associated with working virtually. Dur-
ing the “honeymoon period” (Time 1), they had
anticipated minimal conflict, strong individual
contributions from team members, and few obsta-
cles to project completion. By the end of the project,
12 MayAcademy of Management Executive
participants uniformly remarked that virtual inter-
actions were far more difficult than they had ex-
pected. Participants’ responses to the question “If
you could turn back the clock and start over, what
would you do differently?” included,
“Better define what the project was. We had a
lot of problems at the beginning not knowing
about what we were to work on.” (AP team
member)
“We could have included our mentor (sponsor)
more in the planning phase of the project; this
would have helped eliminate any wrong
paths.” (CAREER team member)
“More discipline in hitting timeline.” (TRANS-
FER team member)
Additionally, when asked “What advice would
you give future virtual teams?” nearly three quar-
ters of the participants replied “Start earlier!”
stressing the importance of establishing a clear
mission and structured work processes from the
outset. Representative comments included:
“Start early, meet often, and hold each other
accountable to timelines and workloads.”
(TRANSFER team member)
“Communicate a lot in the early stages. Find
out what each person’s strengths are, and get
everyone involved. Hold members account-
able.” (AP team member)
“Start early and talk at least every other week.
Set firm deadlines.”(CAREER team member)
Comparing the Most and Least Effective Teams
A profile of the “best” team shows that at each
step of the life cycle this team was proactive, fo-
cused, resourceful, and unafraid to seek support
and guidance as needed. Specifically, evaluations
of team effectiveness demonstrated that among
the six virtual teams, CAREER was the most effec-
tive while AP was the least effective. A comparison
of these teams at each data collection period re-
veals the significant issues that successful virtual
teams resolve at various stages of their develop-
ment. At Time 2, CAREER had developed much
stronger consensus regarding team mission com-
pared to the AP team. CAREER also reported
greater levels of sponsor support and more fre-
quent assessments of team processes than the AP
team. These differences likely reflect the amount of
time that the CAREER team committed to their
project at the beginning of the assignment com-
pared to their colleagues on the AP team.
Results at Time 3 revealed other differences be-
tween the CAREER and AP teams. For instance, the
CAREER team recognized that they had developed
effective working procedures but were not fully
clear about responsibilities. Team members real-
ized that their work processes might need to be
revised to meet their deadline and perform well.
The AP team, in contrast, struggled with how they
could best accomplish their work. CAREER was
also more confident than AP that they could deliver
an outstanding product and that their recommen-
dations would be acted upon by the firm.
At Time 4, differences between the two teams
were even more apparent. In particular, CAREER
reported maintaining higher levels of mission clar-
ity, communication, commitment, and trust among
team members. These differences suggest that be-
tween Times 3 and 4 the CAREER team recognized
what changes needed to be made and successfully
adapted their work processes to deliver an out-
standing final product.
Guiding Virtual Teams Through the Life Cycle:
Guidelines for Managers
This study represents one of the few research ef-
forts that follow virtual project teams from project
inception to completion. We were fortunate to have
access to six virtual teams situated in an organi-
zation, dealing with real issues that required a
tangible outcome for top management. Our find-
ings thus provide a rare glimpse into the dynamics
of “real life” virtual teams. Our data enabled us to
explore which factors at each stage of develop-
ment contribute to team performance and to iden-
tify the special challenges confronting virtual
project teams as they develop. Importantly, how-
ever, our results should be interpreted with some
caution as the experiences of our 29 participants
and the six teams they formed as part of the ELI
may not have been captured fully in our data nor
may their experiences be applicable to all virtual
project teams. For example, we do not know the
extent to which the teams were evenly ditributed
in talent and capabilities or the extent to which
team sponsors or local managers encouraged team
members to take the endeavor seriously. These
limitations notwithstanding, we offer our insights
into how managers can guide virtual project teams
through the project life cycle.
Not surprisingly, we found that working virtually
delayed team progress through the forming stage
by diminishing opportunities to communicate. In-
2004 13Furst, Reeves, Rosen, and Blackburn
deed, many of the virtual project teams communi-
cated infrequently (if at all) during the early,
forming stages of their projects. The lack of com-
munication among team members reduced mis-
sion clarity and productivity at the project’s onset,
stifling early momentum and sending these teams
into a spiral of failure. Contrary to our expecta-
tions and past research on virtual student teams,
trust was not particularly difficult to establish at
the beginning of the teams’ projects. In fact, for
almost all of the teams, perceptions of trust peaked
at Time 2 and declined thereafter. Perhaps team
members recognized that participation in the ELI
was highly selective and inferred that teammates
should be competent, hard working, and trustwor-
thy. As the projects progressed and some team
members failed to demonstrate competence and
commitment to the team during the storming and
norming stages, disillusionment set in, and per-
ceptions of trust eroded.
Our findings underscore the critical role that
senior sponsors can play in assisting virtual
project teams through the early stages of develop-
ment. The most successful teams we observed ac-
tively sought and initiated senior sponsor involve-
ment at the early and middle stages of team life
cycles. Sponsors helped these teams define their
mission, set guidelines and accountabilities, and
build confidence, facilitating team formation and
reducing the length of the storming stage. In con-
trast, teams without early sponsor involvement
lacked direction and momentum during this forma-
tive period. The lack of support prevented these
teams from successfully navigating through the
storming stage, often undermining team members’
confidence and motivation to learn through the
remainder of the projects. Indeed, our observations
of the ELI teams are consistent with prior research
in the project management literature which sug-
gests the importance of early, pre-project planning
and leadership support. This literature concludes
that successful project teams invest time upfront
with project managers to deal with the “fuzzy front
end” of their projects which are often characterized
by an ill-defined purpose, ambiguity regarding
roles and responsibilities, and the uncertainty of
acquiring resources and support. Hackman has re-
cently offered the same insights in his discussion
of the role of leaders in managing successful
teams.
28
As the ELI teams entered the norming stage of
development and attempted to more clearly define
work processes, many struggled with coordination
and commitment issues. Team members expressed
doubts about one another’s commitment to the
projects and raised concerns of possible “free
riding” by some members, reflected in missed
meetings, scheduling conflicts, and unreturned
emails and phone calls. These behaviors may
have been due to more pressing local work de-
mands or technological breakdowns. However,
without the benefit of direct observation and a full
understanding of team members’ local work con-
texts, both of which are typically afforded to co-
located teams, virtual team members attributed
the lack of participation and communication to a
lack of commitment. Managers should encourage
communication between team members to clarify
whether lapses in participation are due to a lack of
commitment or competing demands.
Consistent with prior research on virtual teams,
we found that periodic face-to-face meetings
marked periods of “punctuation” and provided
teams with an opportunity to (re)assess their
progress. For some teams, a pattern emerged in
which energy devoted to working on the projects
peaked shortly before each residency and quickly
dissipated when team members dispersed. How-
ever, our best performing teams took advantage of
the time between residencies to maintain momen-
tum and developed a learning orientation by con-
tinuously sharing information and knowledge with
one another. This disciplined approach to manag-
ing their “virtual” activities enabled teams to be
more confident of their ability to deliver an out-
standing project and more confident that their rec-
ommendations would be implemented.
Our observations and analyses suggest impor-
tant implications for organizations considering the
use of virtual project teams. Based on prior re-
search regarding on-site team development and
supported by findings derived from our longitudi-
nal observations of the six ELI virtual teams, we
offer suggestions for possible interventions appro-
priate to each stage in the virtual team life cycle.
These interventions, described below, are summa-
rized in Table 3.
Interventions at the Forming Stage
Our findings highlight a degree of unbounded but
perhaps unrealistic optimism about potential vir-
tual team success during the forming stage. This
was often followed by the shock of slow progress,
concern about teammates’ commitment levels,
problems with sponsor support, and anxiety over
pending deadlines during later stages of team de-
velopment. All six of our teams reported that their
first experience working virtually was surprisingly
difficult, and many commented that the opportu-
nity provided valuable lessons that would help
them in any future virtual team assignments. Frus-
14 MayAcademy of Management Executive
trations stemming from unrealistically high expec-
tations are not uncommon to project teams.
29
How-
ever, we believe that managerial prescriptions for
helping virtual teams establish reasonable expec-
tations must be sensitive to the unique challenges
of virtual work.
Providing virtual project team members with in-
sights from those who have served in similar situ-
ations is one way we suggest to improve team
formation, as it should alert new teams to potential
problems and pitfalls.
30
For example, Sabre uses
realistic previews to focus virtual team members’
attention on the importance of getting off to a fast
start, contacting sponsors early, and scheduling
opportunities for synchronous communication well
in advance. Previews might also include other spe-
cific insights gained from previous virtual project
team experience or might profile the characteris-
tics of successful virtual teams as a benchmark
against which new teams can chart their progress.
At the forming stage, care should be taken to
help the virtual project team establish a shared
team identity to prevent team members from aban-
doning the virtual project when they return to their
home offices. Initial communications, whether
face-to-face, teleconference, videoconference, or
on-line, should encourage the exchange of per-
sonal information about backgrounds, skills, and
experiences designed to help team members get to
know one another and identify common ground. To
help the team create a unique identity, teams
might develop their own language or jargon to
engage members or develop logos/symbols to
serve as a constant visual reminder of the team
and its mission.
31
Our findings complement prior research on work
teams by highlighting the importance of involving
a senior sponsor early in the team’s life cycle and
gaining “unequivocal support from the top of the
organization.”
32
Indeed, the least effective spon-
sors we observed proceeded with their roles in a
laissez-faire manner, did not proactively contact
the teams, and did not attend their final presenta-
tions. Moreover, these sponsors failed to clarify
their teams’ missions until the teams had com-
pleted a considerable amount of work. This cre-
ated enormous frustration when midway through
the projects the sponsors expressed concern that
the teams were not meeting expectations.
Effective senior sponsors can help virtual project
teams clarify their mission and ensure that team
members have the resources needed to accomplish
their tasks, such as funding travel costs for inter-
mittent face-to-face meetings.
33
Senior sponsors
can also be used to provide pertinent information
and an “expert opinion” on the teams’ task. For
example, in the virtual teams that Lipnack and
Stamps observed from Eastman Chemical Co. and
Sun Microsystems, senior sponsors advised teams
on their task, were invited to key meetings, and
were included in email correspondence between
team members.
34
Finally, sponsors can help teams
create “small wins” upfront that provide a spring-
board for future performance. For example, one of
the more successful virtual teams we followed
used their sponsor to help develop and administer
a survey shortly after the initial meeting. The
launch of the survey energized team members and
provided a confidence boost for their efforts going
forward. This practice has been used successfully
at IBM where virtual team sponsors assist teams in
creating an important 30-day goal upfront that re-
quires full team participation. Similar to the team
we observed, teams at IBM use these 30-day
Table 3
Managerial Interventions During the Virtual Project Team Life Cycle
Formation Storming Norming Performing
●Realistic virtual project team
previews
●Face-to-face team building
sessions
●Create customized templates
or team charters specifying
task requirements
●Ensure departmental and
company culture supports
virtual team work
●Coaching from experienced
team members
●Training on conflict
resolution
●Set individual
accountabilities, completion
dates, and schedules
●Provide sponsor support and
resources for team to
perform
●Develop a shared
understanding and sense of
team identity
●Encourage conflicting
employees to work together
to find common ground
●Establish procedures for
information sharing
●Develop a clear mission ●Shuttle diplomacy and
mediation to create
compromise solutions
●Distinguish task, social, and
contextual information;
design procedures
appropriate for each
●Acquire senior manager
support
●Assign a team coach with
skills for managing virtually
2004 15Furst, Reeves, Rosen, and Blackburn
projects as vehicles to come together and build
early momentum.
35
An important intervention at
the forming stage requires managers to foster a
collaborative partnership between sponsors and
their virtual teams.
Interventions at the Storming Stage
Much has been written about the self-fueling spi-
ral of success or failure experienced by many types
of teams.
36
In particular, teams that experience
early success gain confidence and motivation,
which fuels future efforts and continued success.
Conversely, teams that struggle initially lose con-
fidence and momentum, stifling motivation and
sending these teams into a spiral of failure. The
importance of teams getting off to a fast start and
building on early successes to generate momen-
tum cannot be overemphasized. The virtual project
team members we followed consistently pointed to
the need for teams to build consensus around the
team mission, work out role assignments, commit
to goals, and confront conflicts. The most effective
virtual teams reported the eventual development
of greater mission clarity and higher levels of co-
ordination and agreement around monthly goals,
all of which reflected the time that these teams
invested up front on their projects and the active,
early involvement of the senior sponsor. Less suc-
cessful teams reported early ambiguity around the
project’s purpose, unresolved coordination prob-
lems, and conflict over some members’ lack of com-
mitment, all symptoms of the self-fueling spiral of
failure.
Though sometimes costly and inconvenient, a
face-to-face team-building session for virtual
teams is highly recommended early in the team
development process to reduce the impact of an
unsuccessful storming stage on team develop-
ment. The senior sponsor could assign an experi-
enced team facilitator or “coach” to help virtual
team members focus on building consensus
around a team’s mission, differentiating roles,
clarifying assignments, and resolving conflicts.
Meeting face-to-face provides the richest possible
communication context, often proving critical for
overcoming problems encountered early in a vir-
tual team’s development.
37
In situations where early face-to-face meetings
are not possible, alternatives such as video or tele-
conferencing meetings can still provide a rela-
tively rich opportunity for exchanges and can offer
many, but not all, of the advantages of face-to-face
meetings. If conflict cannot be resolved at such
meetings, teams may employ more overt tech-
niques aimed at addressing specific points of con-
flict.
38
For instance, a team leader or facilitator
may ask conflicting team members to work to-
gether to resolve a problem and to foster greater
understanding and appreciation of each other’s
perspective. In rare cases where a consensus re-
garding protocol or other coordination issues can-
not be reached, teams may consider using “shuttle
diplomacy” or mediation.
39
Specifically, a facilita-
tor will communicate with team members individ-
ually to hear issues, concerns, or ideas, and then
consolidate these viewpoints to come up with a
compromise solution.
Interventions at the Norming Stage
Our teams reported that problems with informa-
tion gathering, commitment from some team mem-
bers, and free riding by others became more ap-
parent at the norming stage of development.
Teams acknowledged that their current work pace
would make it nearly impossible to meet dead-
lines. The seriousness of these shortcomings led
many teams to markedly increase their work ef-
forts. For the best teams, a renewed commitment
proved critical for project completion. For those
teams hopelessly behind, norms governing com-
mitment and productivity developed too late, the
teams became stressed, and the final results were
relatively disappointing.
We believe that early managerial intervention
will increase the likelihood that teams develop
norms governing commitment, accountability, and
productivity, as our successful teams did. Manag-
ers who observe teams struggling with scheduling
and coordination conflicts, miscommunications
between distal team members, and gaining team
members’ commitment to the task can provide
virtual teams with templates that identify strate-
gies for improved team coordination.
40
Teams can
then customize a template to include specific task
requirements, individual accountabilities, ex-
pected completion dates, and mechanisms for col-
lecting, collating, and sharing information. Man-
agers can also help virtual teams identify norms
regarding communication content, including how
to share contextual information. For example,
managers at Intel encourage virtual team mem-
bers to send a “face” depicting their mood on any
given day so that team members can better under-
stand how to interpret and respond to team mem-
ber communications.
41
Some virtual teams may benefit from using elec-
tronic decision support systems to stimulate brain-
storming and group decision-making.
42
Managers
should provide training to ensure that team mem-
bers know how to use these technologies and use
16 MayAcademy of Management Executive
them appropriately, as needed. Virtual team lead-
ers at Novartis recommend that training team
members in the use of more complex collaborative
technologies should be incremental, allowing
team members to become comfortable with various
features of a given technology over time.
43
In addition to the impact of a supportive senior
sponsor, another possible intervention is to assign
project teams “coaches” skilled in virtual manage-
ment to nurture virtual project teams through the
early development stages. Senior sponsors may
not have had experience managing virtual teams
and/or may not be sufficiently accessible to team
members to provide the type of personal sugges-
tions a “coach” could provide. In addition to pro-
viding team members with a realistic preview of
the virtual team experience, coaches could counsel
team members on- or off-line, model the appropri-
ate use of communication and collaboration tech-
nologies, and reinforce the value of managing
boundary relationships.
44
Indeed, our most suc-
cessful teams were particularly proactive, seeking
out informal sources of coaching and support.
Once team members experience success working
virtually, they should become well situated to
coaching new virtual project members and teams.
Interventions at the Performing Stage
As these results suggest, many factors contribute
to virtual project team effectiveness. We have em-
phasized how team processes can contribute to or
detract from team performance. However, it is
equally important to recognize that virtual team
members do not function in isolation. Corporate
and sub-unit cultures may also influence virtual
team effectiveness.
Virtual project team sponsors may need to inter-
vene to shape a more supportive corporate and
sub-unit context within which virtual teams can
flourish. In most instances, serving on a virtual
project team is a part-time assignment. Team
members must balance competing local demands
for their time with commitments made to their virtual
project teams. Virtual team sponsors must be sensi-
tive to these dual demands and, as needed, be will-
ing to negotiate with local executives the relative
importance and time commitment required for suc-
cessful virtual project team participation.
One of our least successful teams reported min-
imal support for their project activities among ex-
ecutives in the divisions represented on this team.
Team members also believed that their perfor-
mance evaluation and compensation for their “real
(non-virtual) job” were at risk if they made more
than a token commitment to the virtual project
team. In contrast, our most successful virtual team
reported complete support for their virtual project
efforts by senior managers in all of the divisions
represented by the team. By providing team mem-
bers with the necessary time and resources to work
on both their local and virtual projects, senior man-
agement signaled that outcomes of the virtual
project team were valued. The lesson seems obvi-
ous: To thrive, virtual project teams must be em-
bedded in supportive corporate cultures.
In addition to providing sufficient resources,
managers can use other strategies to create a sup-
portive culture. For example, virtual team leaders
at ARCO reported that to support their virtual
team’s efforts, team leaders “buffer” interference
from on-site work demands.
45
When virtual team
members are relieved from some of their typical
local demands, they may focus more energy on the
virtual team assignment without fear of reprisal
from their local managers.
The creation of virtual teams will likely require
that managers realign recognition and reward sys-
tems to better assess and reward virtual team per-
formance.
46
For example, Sabre uses a balanced
scorecard approach for tracking virtual team per-
formance that provides quantitative and qualita-
tive information including growth, profitability,
process improvement, and customer satisfaction.
47
Teams may wish to complement this objective per-
formance data with 360 degree evaluation proce-
dures to capture unique individual contributions.
By realigning recognition and reward systems,
managers help their virtual teams discover how
various stakeholders, including customers, other
team members, and outsiders perceive the quality
of their work.
48
Conclusion: Timing the Interventions
To mobilize virtual project teams, managers need
insights into the challenges associated with each
stage of the virtual team life cycle. Based on our
comparison of flourishing and floundering virtual
teams, it appears that managers who can recog-
nize the signs of steady progress as well as the
signs of distress associated with virtual team de-
velopment will be in stronger positions to keep
their teams on track. Similar to the concept of a
“teachable moment” for introducing skills training
at the point where these skills are most salient,
managers must learn to time the introduction of
interventions to virtual team life cycle challeng-
es.
49
To conclude, we suggest a number of stage-
appropriate interventions.
In the formation stage, realistic previews, exer-
cises surrounding the creation of mission state-
2004 17Furst, Reeves, Rosen, and Blackburn
ments, and assistance in building team identity
are all potentially useful strategies for helping
virtual project teams get off to a fast start. The
active involvement of a senior sponsor to clarify
the team’s mission and to ensure that the team has
the resources it needs to perform can also boost
early success. Because teams typically experience
frustration and conflict in the storming stage, most
teams should benefit from managerial interven-
tions to help select appropriate procedures for
working through conflicts, pushing teams more
quickly to the norming stage of team development.
Encouraging teams to establish a strong work
ethic and to create mechanisms for holding mem-
bers accountable for meeting deadlines are inter-
ventions particularly important at the norming
stage.
At the performing stage, managerial interven-
tions to facilitate brainstorming, decision making,
and monitoring of progress against objectives and
timelines will enhance team performance. Finally,
and perhaps most important, are ongoing manage-
rial efforts to embed virtual teams in supportive
work contexts. Similar to other virtual team expe-
riences chronicled in the literature, our six teams
struggled to balance their virtual team demands
with home office priorities.
50
To combat these com-
peting demands, managerial interventions could
take the form of negotiating work priorities with
on-site supervisors and aligning reward systems
to recognize virtual team contributions.
Certainly, sponsors, coaches, managers, and vir-
tual team leaders and members have many inter-
vention options to assist struggling virtual teams.
But, as with so many organizational activities, tim-
ing is everything. Introducing interventions at the
appropriate stage of development represents an
important tool for leveraging virtual team perfor-
mance. Having the tools in the toolkit is only the
beginning. Knowing which tool to use when is the
sign of the true master craftsman.
Appendix
Descriptive Information Regarding the Six Virtual
Project Team Participants
The members of the six virtual project teams that we followed
were employed by FOODCO. This company distributes food
products to schools, hospitals, fast-food chains, and individu-
ally owned and operated restaurants, and manufactures a lim-
ited number of its own products. Executives at FOODCO com-
missioned a large university located in the southeastern US to
create an Executive Leadership Institute (ELI) that would (1)
align organizational learning with strategic business needs, (2)
establish cross-organizational networks to encourage the shar-
ing of best practices, (3) prepare managers for expanded or-
ganizational roles, (4) integrate new managers from FOODCO’s
recent acquisitions, and (5) develop a unified company culture
across its multiple operating companies.
The 29 participants in the ELI program held positions of
substantial responsibility in human resources, finance, market-
ing, sales, and operations areas. Superiors nominated partici-
pants for the program based on their potential to contribute to
the company beyond their current levels of responsibility. Four-
teen participants were from the executive ranks, while the re-
maining participants held middle-management positions.
Summary of Methodology Used to Study Virtual
Project Teams at FOODCO
To assess the factors that contributed to virtual project team
performance at various stages of the teams’ life cycles, we
collected survey and interview data throughout the eight-month
project period. Specifically, during each of the four residence
sessions, ELI participants completed surveys and participated
in interviews designed to assess their attitudes and behaviors
during the virtual project team assignment.
Participant surveys included both quantitative and qualita-
tive questions. The quantitative data we collected at each time
period varied slightly to reflect anticipated differences in de-
velopment issues. During the first residency, participants were
asked about the meaning of their project, its usefulness to the
firm, the impact that the project would have on the company,
how competent they felt to complete the project, and the antic-
ipated climate for teamwork. During subsequent residence pe-
riods, survey questions focused on team process variables, such
as perceptions of mission clarity, trust levels among team mem-
bers, learning capacity, extent of sponsor support, and specific
performance outcomes, including percentage of project com-
pleted, perceptions of team productivity, and perceived efficacy
of completing an outstanding project.
Surveys also included several open-ended questions allow-
ing participants to describe their views of the project, the chal-
lenges associated with virtual work, and their teams’ responses
to these challenges. For instance, during the first residency, we
asked participants to “Describe your expectations for how you
think your team will work together.” Questions at the third
residency focused on what individuals had learned about work-
ing virtually and what they would do differently had they been
able to start over. During the final residency, we asked partic-
ipants to reflect on their experience, to discuss what they
learned about team processes that they could carry over to their
current jobs, and to consider what advice they might give future
virtual teams.
At the end of the fourth residency, teams presented their
analysis and recommendations to a group of FOODCO’s top
executives and ELI administrators. This group rated the quality
and content of each team’s analysis of the critical business
issue they researched and the quality of the recommendations
they provided. They also rated the quality of the presentation
delivered by each team. Each observer calculated an overall
score for each team based on these three dimensions. We ag-
gregated and averaged ratings for each team and used the
result as the measure of team performance in further analyses.
Endnotes
1
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(3): 17–29.
18 MayAcademy of Management Executive
2
Potter, R. E., & Balthazard, P. A. 2002. Understanding human
interaction and performance in the virtual team. Journal of
Information Technology Theory and Application,4:1–23; Baker,
G. 2002. The effects of synchronous collaborative technologies
on decision making: A study of virtual teams. Information Re-
sources Management Journal, 15(4): 79 –93.
3
Ahuja, M. K., & Galvin, J. E. 2001. Socialization in virtual
groups. Journal of Management, 29: 1–25.
4
Townsend, et al., 1998, op. cit.; Cascio, W. F. 2000. Managing
a virtual workplace. The Academy of Management Executive,
14(3): 81–90; Kirkman, B. L., et al. 2002. Five challenges to virtual
team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. The Academy of Man-
agement Executive, 16(3): 67–79.
5
See, for example, Banker, Lee, Potter, & Srinivasan, 1996;
Wellins, Byham, & Dixon, 1994; Cohen & Ledford, 1994; and
Cordery, Mueller, & Smith, 1991.
6
For studies that investigate coordination, communication
interpersonal dynamics, and technology issues in virtual or
computer-mediated teams, see Straus, S. G. 1996. Getting a
clue: The effects of communication media and information
distribution on participation and performance in computer-
mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 27:
115–42; Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. 2000. Virtual teams: People
working across boundaries with technology.2
nd
ed. New York:
Wiley; Daft, R. T., & Lengel, R. H. 1986. Organizational infor-
mation requirements, media richness, and structural design.
Management Science, 32: 554 –571; and Straus, S. G., &
McGrath, L. E. 1994. Does medium matter? The interaction of
task type and technology on group performance and member
reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1): 87–97.
7
Hackman, J. R. 1990. Groups that work (and those that don’t):
Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco: Jos-
sey-Bass.
8
Tuckman, B. W. 1965. Development sequence in small
groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63: 384 –399; Gersick, C. J. G.
1988. Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of
group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 9 – 41.
9
Gersick, C. J. G. 1994. Pacing strategic change: The case of
a new venture. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 9 – 45.
10
See, for example, in Bordia, P., DiFonzo, N., & Chang, A.
1999. Rumor as group problem solving: Development patterns in
informal computer-mediated teams. Small Group Research, 30:
8 –28. For further evidence of pacing differences, see Gluesing,
J. C., et al. 2002. The development of global virtual teams. In
C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work:
Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness: 353–380. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. For evidence of the punctuated equilib-
rium model in virtual teams, see Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000,
op. cit.
11
Caproni, P. J. 2001. The practical coach: Management skills
for everyday life. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall (see
specifically Chapter 8, entitled, “Diverse teams and virtual
teams: Managing differences and distances,” 247–287).
12
Cramton, C. D. 2001. The mutual knowledge problem and
its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Sci-
ence, 12: 346 –371.
13
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly III, C. A. 1992. Being
different: Relational demography and organizational attach-
ment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 549 –579.
14
Cramton, C. D. 2002. Finding common ground in dispersed
collaboration. Organizational Dynamics, 30: 356 –367.
15
Shapiro, D. L., et al. 2002. Transnational teams in the elec-
tronic age: Are team identity and high performance at risk?
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 455– 467.
16
Handy, C. 1995. Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard
Business Review, 73(9): 40 – 48.
17
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: 29 – 64.
18
Cramton, 2002, op. cit.
19
Hollingshead, A. B., & McGrath, J. E. 1995. Computer as-
sisted groups: A critical review of the empirical research. In
Guzzo, R., & Salas, E. (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision
making in organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 46 –78.
20
Hinds, P. J., & Weisband, S. P. 2002. Knowledge sharing and
shared understanding in virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G.
Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for
virtual team effectiveness: 221–36. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21
Blackburn, R. S., Furst, S. A., & Rosen, B. 2002. Building a
winning team: KSAs, selection, training, and evaluation. In C. B.
Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating
conditions for virtual team effectiveness:95–120. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
22
Tyran, K. L., Tyran, C. K., & Shepard, M. 2002. Exploring
emerging leadership in virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G.
Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for
virtual team effectiveness: 183–195. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23
Furst, S. A., Blackburn, R. S., & Rosen, B. 1999. Virtual team
effectiveness: A proposed research agenda. Information Sys-
tems Journal,9:249–269.
24
Kirkman, et al., 2002, op. cit.
25
Jarvenpaa, et al., 1998, op. cit.; Cascio, 2000, op. cit.
26
Gluesing, et al., 2002, op. cit.
27
Kossler, M., & Prestridge, S. 2004. Leading dispersed teams:
Ideas into action guidebook. Greensboro, NC: Center for Cre-
ative Leadership.
28
Hackman, J. R. 2002. Leading teams: Setting the stage for
great performances: 199 –232. Boston: Harvard Business School;
Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., & Discenza, R. 2002. Pre-project partnering
impact on an information system project, project team and
project manager. European Journal of Information Systems, 11:
86 –97; Zhang, Q., & Doll, W. J. 2001. The fuzzy front end and
success of new product development: A causal model. European
Journal of Innovation Management, 4(2): 95–112.
29
Wetlaufer, S., et al. 1994. The team that wasn’t. Harvard
Business Review, 72(6): 22–38.
30
Kirkman, et al., 2002, op. cit.
31
Malhotra, A., et al. 2001. Radical innovation without collo-
cation: A case study at Boeing-Rocketdyne. MIS Quarterly, 25:
229 –249.
32
Kossler & Prestridge, 2004, op. cit.
33
Ibid.
34
Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. 2000, op. cit.
35
Rosen, B., et al. 2001. Is virtual the same as being there?:
Not really! Paper presented at the National Academy of Man-
agement Meetings, Toronto.
36
Hackman, J. R. 1990. Groups that work (and those that don’t).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
37
Joinson, C. 2002. Managing virtual teams. HRMagazine,
47(6): 69 –73.
38
Gluesing, et al., 2002, op. cit.
39
Ibid.
40
Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. 2001.
Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict man-
agement in global virtual teams. Academy of Management
Journal, 44: 1251–1262.
41
Rosen, et al., 2001, op. cit.
42
Lam, S. S. K., & Shaubroeck, J. 2000. Improving group deci-
sions by better pooling information: A comparative advantage
of group decision support systems. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 85(4): 565–573.
2004 19Furst, Reeves, Rosen, and Blackburn
43
Rosen, et al., 2001, op. cit.
44
Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. 1998. Communication and trust
in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6): 791– 815.
45
Ibid.
46
Lawler, E. E. 2002. Pay systems for virtual teams. In C. B.
Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating
conditions for virtual team effectiveness: 121–144. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
47
Kirkman, et al., 2002, op. cit.
48
Blackburn, et al., 2002, op. cit.
49
Ibid.
50
Reeves, M., & Furst, S. 2004. Virtual teams in an executive
education training program. In S. H. Godar, & S. P. Ferris (Eds.),
Virtual and collaborative teams: Process, technologies, and
practice: 232–252. Hershey, PA: Idea Publishing Group;
Gluesing, et al., 2002, op. cit.; Hackman, et al., 2002, op. cit.
Benson Rosen is Hanes Profes-
sor of Management at the
Kenan-Flagler Business School-
The University of North Caro-
lina. He holds a Ph.D. Degree in
Social and Industrial Psychol-
ogy from Wayne State Univer-
sity. HHis research interests in-
clude virtual teams, empower-
ment, and career success. He is
the coauthor of two books and
over 90 articles that have ap-
peared in leading academic
and professional journals. Con-
tact: Ben_Rosen@unc.edu.
Richard S. Blackburn is an as-
sociate professor of organiza-
tional behavior at the Kenan-
Flagler Business School, Uni-
versity of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. He received his
Ph.D. in organizational behav-
ior from the University of Wis-
consin-Madison. His research
interests include virtual teams,
creativity and innovation in or-
ganizations. He is a member
of the editorial boards of the
Academy of Management Jour-
nal and the Human Resources
Management Journal. Contact:
Dick㛭Blackburn@unc.edu.
Stacie Furst is an assistant pro-
fessor of management at the
Ourso College of Business, Lou-
isiana State University. She re-
ceived her Ph.D. in manage-
ment from the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Her research interests center
on organizational change, man-
agerial influence, virtual work
environments, and resistance
to technology. Contact: sfurst1@
lsu.edu.
Martha E. Reeves is a visiting
assistant professor at Duke Uni-
versity. She received her Ph.D.
in industrial relations and hu-
man resources management
from Keele University, U.K.
Her research interests center
around dispersed teams and
women executives. In addition
to writing articles on reward
management in the workplace
and virtual teams, she has au-
thored a book concerning gender
issues for women executives.
Contact: mreeves@duke. edu.
20 MayAcademy of Management Executive
