The success of virtual teams

The success of virtual teams

The success of virtual teams is reliant on the presence of conducive conditions that promote a seamless interaction of members. Notably, effective communication is essential in group dealings since it facilitates the dissemination of information among the involved parties. Other elements as trust, accountability, commitment, and healthy conflict are also essential to the continued productivity of teams. The working of such attributes is more pronounced in the case of virtual teams, where members have limited face-to-face contact. Lack of trust and information overload in virtual teams are significant barriers that can limit their overall productivity.

Mutual trust in virtual teams helps members to communicate effectively. The existence of confidence between individuals in a cybernetic group acts as an antecedent to the free exchange of information. Brahm and Kunze (2012) emphasize the importance of bonding in cultivating a trust climate, which encourages members to interact and share, despite the simulated nature of their team set-up. Similarly, Hacker, Johnson, Saunders, and Thayer (2019) recognize trust as a prerequisite to solving the other challenges influencing the productivity of virtual teams. In this regard, group affiliates who distrust one another can be prone to such other dysfunctions as lack of commitment, inattention to outcomes, absence of accountability, and fear of conflict. Members are likely to adopt a reclined approach, avoiding obligating themselves if the group environment is not trustworthy. Probable tendencies can include withholding information, reluctance to seek clarification or even explicit disinterest in the workings of the team. Such elements are bound to undermine the productivity of the group.

Information overload can be a significant challenge in virtual teams. Research on the efficiency of information exchange indicates that 50% of supervisors and a third of employees encounter IO (Ellwart, Happ, Gurtner, & Rack, 2015). Group leaders must, thus, monitor the dissemination and management of data to ensure that members receive only the desired information to avoid overload, which can result in confusion, stress, and anxiety (Ellwart et al., 2015). In a team of 25 members, several strategies can be adopted to minimize the incidence of informational burden.

Designation of roles and sharing of responsibilities can help to minimize incidences of information overload in virtual teams. Markedly, team leaders tend to share blanket information to all members in cases where responsibilities are not explicitly defined and assigned. In such cases, participants receive and process substantial irrelevant data, which is not useful to their contribution (Ellwart et al., 2015). To avoid such confusion and wastage of time, leaders can label assignments and ensure that instructions are directed to the relevant party. Indicative phrases can be used before each communication to denote to whom the message is addressed. Alternatively, direct messaging can be utilized in platforms that support both public and private sharing. Ellwart et al. (2015) discuss the significance of team adaptation theory in managing IO and identifies joint team mental models (TTM), which are the knowledge members have about each other and tasks, as integral elements in addressing the problem. The authors posit that clarifying the assignments of the team can assist subjects in processing information, hence, enhancing their capacity to detect overload. Such a shared understanding can significantly reduce cases of IO since members can question the relevance of shared data.

Lack of trust and information overload can be detrimental to the functioning of virtual teams. Virtual team members who lack shared confidence can exemplify such destructive tendencies as the holding of information, lack of commitment, and negative conflict. Similarly, excessive supply of information in virtual groups can increase confusion, distress, and anxiety, factors that undermine the performance of the entity.

References

Brahm, T., & Kunze, F. (2012). The role of trust climate in virtual teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(6), 595–614. doi: 10.1108/02683941211252446

Ellwart, T., Happ, C., Gurtner, A., & Rack, O. (2015). Managing information overload in virtual teams: Effects of a structured online team adaptation on cognition and performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(5), 812–826. doi: 10.1080/1359432x.2014.1000873

Hacker, J. V., Johnson, M., Saunders, C., & Thayer, A. L. (2019). Trust in virtual teams: A Multidisciplinary Review and Integration. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 23. doi: 10.3127/ajis.v23i0.1757