Communication in Virtual Teams - Essay Example

?CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT (2) Task: The notion of utilizing workgroups and teams in contemporary business is a pertinent component of practicing routine operations and pressing for changes in the business arena. Additionally, globalization has mandated affiliations to adapt to the ever-augmenting weakness in competition, in the market. Virtual workgroups synchronize the human trait with modern technology. In the critical study encompassing an international multicultural virtual workgroup experiment between U.S. Korean and Nigerian teams, we discovered that time issues, cross-cultural relations and technological integration among others to be overtly challenging for effective communication and end-consumer satiation. Limited cultural training barred most interactions. Though, participating parties rated this handy experiment as a major embodiment of their education. Introduction Virtual teams are turning into a standard element of worldwide business affiliations. The globalization of affiliations and technological advancements ensue into driving this virtual team notion that may continue to augment and develop into the predictable future. Virtual groups vary from face groups. One key difference is that they are thoroughly geographically placed, a fact that forces individuals to aim at overcoming time, affiliation boundaries and time (Ahuja, Galletta, and Carley, 2003). Moreover, communication is continually identified as the key to fruitful virtual teams. Therefore, communication and its several elements are a prime focus of this study. Virtual workgroups can typically be acknowledged by their traits. Virtual teams are a functional team that is inter-reliant in work management, having displayed equality in responsibility for upshots and universally managing relations across affiliation boundaries. Team members are geographically diverse and depend on technology-enhanced communications instead of face interaction to achieve tasks (Zakaria, Amelinckx and Wilemon, 2004). Communication in virtual teams The potential merits of this collaboration are plentiful, inclusive of efficacy of project manipulation, elimination of visible boundaries, synchronization and optimization of proficiencies and the ability to mould new partnerships (Chinowsky & Rojas, 2003). Additionally, virtual teams provide the opportunity to form culturally, assorted solutions; enhances creativity and a strong sense of unity among the involved team players. This can also encourage a firm acceptance of new notions, offering a competitive merit for international affiliations. Other merits are cost savings related to lodging and travel, time separation which makes the project to be active and access to most of the influential people in the affiliation joining deliberations at a pantry cost (Furnham, 2000). The demerits of virtual teams are that they often lean to utilise a more time-consuming deliberation process. When misunderstandings and poor communication occur, conflicts may arise among working teams. The time and geographical distance zones between team members may make a resolution of these constraints harder (Zakaria, Amelinckx and Wilemon, 2004). Cultural constraints of notably diverse nations may aggravate the drawbacks. Communication and trust One of the most pertinent keys to affluence with regard to communication is complete trust among teams and their members. Team associates ought to feel liberated to assert their viewpoints with no fear of critics. This constraint can be more complicated if team affiliates have hardly met each other or know pantry regarding their workmates (Warkentin et al, 2002). The swift trust phenomenon postulates that team players import anticipations of trust from common settings. In virtual teams, there is overtly meagre time to reserve and develop any mode of individual relationships. Workforces are constantly selected for virtual teams based on a sundry knowhow set, with pantry or no considerable attention given to a past record of working closely together (Oertig, 2006). Moreover, there is a substantial possibility that they may not work together in the future. When these elements are combined with stringent deadlines and elevated stress surroundings, it is overtly not an appropriate environment for structuring a relationship (Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 2001). Therefore, it is pertinent for workforces to display an initial convincing impression with their workgroups (Gatlin-Watts and Carson, 2007). A poor first impression intricate the interpersonal relations and deters the development of reliance which is a prerequisite for efficient communication within the team. Even if, technology interceded communication pathways initially decrement relational closeness, the members of virtual workgroups can devise modes of exchanging emotional and social communication, inclusive of group attitudes and emotions. Research from the past and contemporary times has depicted that associates of a team using computers shall eventually develop lock relational bonds, though it does not take comparably more time (Van der Kleij, Schraagen, Werkhaven, & DeDreu, 2009; Warkentin & Beranek, 2009). As technological advancements continue to emerge, the extent of separation between the participating parties has depreciated. One might purport that famous student sites such as Facebook, and Google plus may take a significant role in accelerating trust creation. It, thus, seems likely that as team players become more familiarized to selected expressions of the virtual meeting point, the aspect of trust shall become easily obtainable. Social presence Social presence is a factor with regard to communique and confidence. Moreover, it refers to the aptitude of a communication channel to raise a team player of other associates and to experience that the association is universally involved in communicative integration. The scope of social presence appears to depend on the ability of the communication mediums to disseminate powerful information such as posture, non-verbal devices, gaze and physical closeness among others. In accordance with Andres (2002), as the assortment of these mediums dwindles in a communication channel less interest is paid to the presence of other associates associated with a communication session. If the team affiliates cannot identify the various cues, it results into an augmentation of the social distance (Hakkinen, 2004). Communications in virtual surroundings demands that strategies to be devised to account for the deficiency in verbal devices (Ross et al, 2008). Some researchers purport that communication is majorly nonverbal, which overtly leaves task to the virtual affiliates and modes. Individuals in a virtual workgroup experience the urge to be informed of to the pertinence of nonverbal devices, since; a successful communication structure is pertinent for the affiliation (Roebuck, Brock, and Moodie, 2004). National cultural constraints on communication The implication of national tradition on communication is asserted in virtual workgroups. Individuals from varying cultures differ in their communication and group behaviour, inclusive of how they unveil information regarding themselves and also their dire need to share intelligence regarding an affiliation or project (Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 2001). Additionally, studies by Jones, Adams and Rose (2008) depicted that sensitivity has been described as a conference and adaptation to the associate’s home business activities as perceived by the affiliate. Hofstede’s dimensions of culture Studies, by Hofstede, a sociologist and an acknowledged authority in the area of worldwide culture, defined various cultural proportions. Knowledge of these proportions can aid virtual affiliates in comprehending their partners. Hofstede (2004) devised his cultural proportions and modes of classifying, and an assortment among different nations. The most notable for communication in virtual workgroups is collectivism against individualism, unawareness avoidance and varying context. Collectivism-Individualism One proportion of cultural inconsistency is collectivism-individualism which is purported to be the most pertinent in workgroups. In individualistic teams, the goals, needs and qualities of the individual take superiority over the goals, needs and values of the team. Individualists also lean to seek more frank and overt communication modes that individuals from the opposite culture. (Sosik, 2002). In addition, past and present research points out these individuals as depicting a greater susceptibility to answer to bogus messages. This has been inferred to be an unquestioning behaviour, suggesting that persons from the individualist cultures may be likelier to believe individuals in a virtual workgroup environment (Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 2001). Worldwide virtual team affiliates whose cultures acknowledge communalism are likelier to acknowledge working within a workgroup setting and the relationship creation related with it. However, they may face emotions of isolation, because, workgroup affiliates are geographically spread out and it may be pestering to them to work without continuous group input (Saunders et al, 2004). For those individuals who come from cultures that significantly value personal effort, players from communalist cultures may appear as openly needy and pressing, on the contrary, individualistic partners may be declared as cold and not legitimate team associates by communalist players (Souren et al, 2005). Additionally, the individualistic team players will possibly assert their notions more willingly and challenge the inclination of the workgroup. They will also need direct response on their performance and rewards intimately related to their presentation. Collectivists do not need precise work descriptions or tasks, but will accomplish whatever is required for the workgroup, preferably together with other workgroup affiliates. Moreover, collectivists like better face meetings instead of virtual gatherings. They will additionally, feel embarrassed if discriminated against for praise or a personal motivation award (Goodbody, 2004). Conclusion In conclusion, virtual workgroups are the only option affiliations have when their organizations are in peril of worldwide challenges. Team learning is a worldwide strategy utilized by cross-operational teams to offer the best outcomes within a given strict deadline. Collaboration across demarcations bars nonyielding competition and notions from being unvalued or misplaced (Holton, 2001). Thus, managers, whether in Nigeria, Korea or the U.S., ought to define and craft universal schemes to communicate across demarcations by the formation of virtual business workgroups and to comprehend the diverse cultural proportions and social frameworks present in each nation. Bibliography Ahuja, Manju K., Galletta, Dennis F. & Carley, Kathleen M. (2003). Individual Centrality and Performance in Virtual R & D Groups: An Empirical Study. Management Science, Vol. 49, No. 1, 21 – 38 Zakaria, Norhayati, Amelinckx, Andrea & Wilemon, David (2004). Working Together Apart? Building a Knowledge-Sharing Culture for Global Virtual Teams. Creativity And Innovation Management, Vol. 13, No. 1. Chinowsky, Paul S. & Rojas, Eddy M. (2003). Virtual Teams: Guide to Successful Implementation. Journal of Management In Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 3 Furnham, Adrian (2000), Work In 2020,. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 3, 242 – 254 Jarvenpaa, Sifkka L. 2001. Staying Connected and Coordinated: The Do’s and Don’ts.Chapter 8: Building Trust from a Distance. NY: MacMillan Company. van der Kleij, R., Schraagen, J., Werkhoven, P., & De Dreu, C. (2009). How Conversations Change Over Time in Face-to-Face and Video-Mediated Communication. Small Group Research, 40(4), 355-381. Andres, Hayward P. (2002). A Comparison of Face To Face and Virtual Software Development Teams. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8, No. ? , 39 – 48 Hakkinen, Paivi (2004). What Makes Learning and Understanding in Virtual Teams So Difficult. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, Vol. 7, No. 2 Gatlin-Watts, R. & Carson, M. (2007). A guide to global virtual teaming. Team Performance Management, 12(2), 47-52. Roebuck, Deborah Britt, Brock, Stephen J., & Moodie, Douglas R. (2004). Using a Simulation to Explore the Challenges of Communicating In a Virtual Team. Business Communications Quarterly, Volume 67, No. 3, 359-367 Jarvenpaa, Sifkka L. & Leidner, Dorothy E. (2001). Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Organization Science Vol. 10 , No. 6, 791 – 815 Hofstede, G.J. (2004). Culture’s Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Sosik, J.J. & Jung, D.I. (2002). Work-group characteristics and performance in collectivistic and individualistic cultures. Journal of Social Psychology, 142(1), 5-23 Goodbody, Jenny (2005). Critical Success Factors for Global Virtual Teams. Strategic Communication Management, Vol. 9, Issue 2 Souren P., Samarah, I.M., Seetharaman, P., & Mykytyn, P. (2005). An empirical investigation of collaborative conflict management style in group support system-based global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(3), 185-222. Warkentin, Merrill & Beranek, Peggy M. (2002). Training to Improve Virtual Team Communication. Information Systems Journal 9, 271 – 289 Saunders, C., Van Slyke, C., & Vogel, D. My time or yours? Managing time visions in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Executive, Feb 2004, Vol. 18 Issue 1, p19-31 Ross, M., Jones, E., & Adams, S. Can team effectiveness be predicted? Team Performance Management, Aug 2008, Vol. 14 Issue 5, p248-268 Oertig, M. & Buergi, T. The challenges of managing cross-cultural virtual project teams. Team Performance Management, 2006, Vol. 12 Issue 1/2, p23-30 Holton, A.J. (2001). Building trust and Collaboration in a virtual team. Team Performance Management, 7, 36-43. Read More