Study from Com Team: Leading virtually still lacks broad acceptance in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. While most managers and staff accept cost reduction as a major benefit, the "always on" consequence and increased pressure result in a negative assessment.
Global virtual teams are internationally distributed groups of people with an organizational mandate to make or implement decisions with international components and implications. They are typically assigned tasks that are strategically important and highly complex. They rarely meet in person, conducting almost all of their interaction and decision making using communications technology. Although they play an increasingly important role in multinational organizations, little systematic is known about their dynamics or effectiveness. This study built a grounded theory of global virtual team processes and performance over time. We built a template based on Adaptive Structuration Theory (DeSanctis and Poole 1994) to guide our research, and we conducted a case study, observing three global virtual teams over a period of 21 months. Data were gathered using multiple methods, and qualitative methods were used to analyze them and generate a theory of global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. First, we propose that effective global virtual team interaction comprises a series of communication incidents, each configured by aspects of the team's structural and process elements. Effective outcomes were associated with a fit among an interaction incident's form, decision process, and complexity. Second, effective global virtual teams sequence these incidents to generate a deep rhythm of regular face-to-face incidents interspersed with less intensive, shorter incidents using various media. These two insights are discussed with respect to other literature and are elaborated upon in several propositions. Implications for research and practice are also outlined.
A new study found that an overwhelming number of employees blame poor collaboration for failures in the workplace. Here’s an infographic that explores where these collaboration breakdowns happen — and how to prevent them in the future.
Collaboration. It’s a $1 billion industry, according to an ABI Research study on worker mobility and enterprise social collaboration. And it's projected to grow to $3.5 billion by 2016.
No wonder lots of ink has been spilled on this business buzzword on everything from how to start (hint: build trust) to doing it better with social platforms, to using it as a way to achieve that holy grail of business: innovation.
there’s a big difference between working alongside other staff members and actually collaborating.
In a lightweight study of virtual teams, Stanford management science researcher Pamela Hinds found that 6 months after virtual team members participated in an intense week-long team-building retreat there was zero correlation to their ability to work together. Hinds believes that in order to increase a group's relational coordination or ability to problem-solve through mutual respect and open communication, members need to "know-who" each other are in their work contexts. Bringing people who don't usually see each other to do team-building exercises in a neutral hotel doesn't help because Hinds points out, "the truth is we don't work in neutral territory."
She emphasizes, "Learning to work together is learning how people work, not just what kind of beer do you like," even though she adds, "that's useful information."