Virtual
teams and working in the virtual environment are increasingly becoming the way
in which work is done both within and between organizations. Virtual teaming offers
increased flexibility in the way in which work is conducted and has several potential
benefits; flexibility of time and place being two of the most frequently cited
(Bock, 2003; Jude-York, Davis & Wise, 2000). Almost
ten years ago Lipnack and Stamps (1997) made the following observation, “in
the coming decades, most people will work in virtual teams for at least some part
of their jobs” (p. 5). Parker (2003) observes that most teams in the workplace
are now diverse and virtual requiring members and leaders alike to develop a new
set of skills in order to work effectively in these “leading teams of strangers”
(p. 1). There
are a variety of different types of virtual teams that have been identified in
the literature (Jude-York et al., 2000). Given the changing nature of the workplace,
people participate in a number of these teams simultaneously and the types are
not exclusive. In cross-functional virtual teams, people from different functional
areas are brought together to achieve a common purpose that may or may not be
time-limited. Horizontal virtual teams generally are constructed so that all members
of the team share an equivalent position in the hierarchy, and are brought together
to achieve a common purpose. Self-directed virtual teams are teams without formal
leaders. The roles and responsibilities are determined by the team, and not dictated
from the outside It is now well documented in the literature (Henry & Hartzler,
1998; Jude-York et al., 2000; Lipnack & Stamps, 1997) that working in virtual
teams is more difficult than in face-to-face teams. People operating in virtual
teams need to address several unique challenges some of which include (1) managing
across distances and time zones, (2) shifting team membership or membership on
multiple teams, (3) defining norms for the team that are appropriate to its mission,
(4) “boundarylessness” or ambiguity in what used to be well-defined
and predictable work practices, and (5) culture and regional differences. The
VASE framework has been developed to help individuals, teams and organizations
to understand and address some of the challenges of working with virtual teams.
It is based on over 40 years collective virtual teaming experience and some recent
research and development work based at Royal Roads University in partnership with
Calliope Learning. The framework has four components: (1) build and maintain a
Vision, (2), check Assumptions, (3), take a Systems approach, and (4) Expect white
water. Each component has an associated set of competencies and development tools.
Build
and Maintain a Vision Building
and maintaining a vision is a critical component of virtual teams. “A vision
is a picture of the future you seek to create, described in the present tense,
as if it were happening now” (Senge et al, 1994, p 302). The literature on
virtual and face-to-face teamwork (Henry & Hartzler, 1998; Jude-York et al.,
2000) emphasizes the need for a team’s goal and purpose to be well
understood,
shared among all team members and revisited at regular intervals. This may seem
like common sense but Murphy’s Law tells us that wherever there are opportunities
for miscommunication then we need to pay careful attention. If team members are
heading in different directions then a team doesn’t really exist. Checking
Assumptions While
checking assumptions is a key skill for any teamwork, it becomes imperative in
virtual and horizontal teamwork because so many taken for granted conditions are
challenged. On virtual teams when things are not said, they do not exist. People
working on virtual teams need to continually check their assumptions about the
three Cs of working in virtual teams – communication, coordination and collaboration.
Jude-York et al., (2000) refer to the three Cs as “the
primary tasks of virtual teamwork” (p. 10). While the three Cs are not the
goal of the team, they are the factors that will enable the team to reach its
goal. Taking
a Systems View “Everything
affects everything else in one way or another. Whether you are aware of that or
not does not change the fact that this is what is happening. This systems perspective
reminds us that this is what is going on. And when you see it this way, you can
manage your business better” (Woods, 2002). Within virtual teams, there are
intra-team and inter-team systems which need to be identified and dealt with on
an ongoing basis. The flexibility of time and space inherent in virtual teams
can make it difficult at times to see connections to the larger intra/inter team
systems. Without regular attention to the intra/inter-team system dynamics, the
ability of the team to effectively and efficiently reach its goal is compromised. Expect
White Water |
Most
people are comfortable with some changes (i.e. in their field of expertise, with
technology) but not others (i.e. organizational structural changes). However,
what is needed is the development of skills to become comfortable around all sorts
of changes. By not looking for stability but rather embracing and even expecting
white water conditions, we need to become good learners, and, in particular, really
good at being beginners. Virtual
Team Skills Inventory (VTSI) The
Virtual Team Skills Inventory (VTSI) is a multi-rater, inside/outside, team skills
inventory for virtual and other types of traditional and modern teams. It is similar
to 360-degree assessments in that the VTSI draws on multiple perspectives from
the individual, team members and external reviewers to get a clear picture of
a team's skills. To do so, the VTSI identifies the strengths and areas for improvement
based on a set of competencies and related indicators derived from the VASE framework
and supporting literature on team and online competencies (Goodyear et al., 2001;
Salmon, 2000). The
VTSI looks at a team from both an internal and external perspective to reduce
the risk of skill blind spots. It also recognizes opportunities for team learning
by identifying potential coaching partners within the team. The inventory provides
qualitative reports that identify the areas for growth according to the virtual
team skill competencies. Although the inventory has been created
with virtual
teams in mind, it is just as applicable to all types of traditional and modern
teams. Traditional
360-degree assessments suffer from two particular drawbacks that the VTSI addresses. - In
the VTSI raters are only asked to give feedback in areas that they know about.
Traditional 360s ask for all raters to answer the same multi-choice questions.
- In
the VTSI feedback is provided in a qualitative form that lists a ratee’s
specific strengths and areas for improvement based on the competencies selected.
Traditional 360s provide quantitative feedback that is out of context, difficult
to make meaning from and not always geared towards the development of action strategies
(Johnson, 2004).
Conclusion Working
in virtual teams is an iterative job and one that requires the participation of
each virtual team member. Team process needs to be attended to on a regular basis
in order for progress on the team task to benefit from virtual teaming. The VASE
framework and the VTSI tool introduced in
this article are two ways in which virtual teams can identify, develop and hone
their virtual team skills on an ongoing basis in a sustainable manner. References Bock,
W. (2003). Some rules for Virtual Teams. Journal for Quality & Participation,
26(3), 43. Goodyear,
P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competencies
for Online Teaching: A Special Report. Educational Technology Research and Development,
49(1), 65-72. Henry,
J. E., Hartzler, M. (1998). Tools for Virtual Teams. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Press. Lipnack,
Jessica & Stamps, Jeffrey (1997) Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space, Time,
and Organizations with Technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons Johnson,
L. (2004). Retooling 360s for better performance. http://hbswk.hbs.edu Jude-York,
D., Davis, L., & Wise, S. (2000). Virtual Teaming: Breaking the Boundaries
of Time and Place. Menlo Park: Crisp Publications Inc. Parker,
G. (2003). Leading a Team of Strangers. Training and Development, 2, p. 21-23. Salmon,
G. (2000). E-Moderating. The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. London: Kogan
Page Senge,
P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, D., Ross, R., and Smith, B. (1999). The Fifth Discipline
Fieldbook. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Vaill,
P. (1996). Learning as a Way of Being. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wood,
J. (2002). Work in Progress. |
