Leadership Challenges in Virtual Teams - Research Proposal Example

? Leadership Challenges in Virtual Teams Inserts His/Her Inserts Grade Inserts (25, November, ) Outline Outline 2 1. Research Background 3 2. Problem statement 5 a)Theoretical framework 6 3. Research Objectives 9 Research Questions 11 4. Literature review 11 5. Research methodology 13 6. Ethical Issues 14 7. Research limitations. 14 References 15 Leadership Challenges in Saudi Arabian Virtual teams 1. Research Background Virtual teams may be defined as groups consisting of geographically dispersed individuals, which have been brought together to focus on a specific project and rely on communication technology to interact. Curseu et. al. (2008) notes that there is a lack of consensus on the definition of this important term. Some authors disagree on whether virtual teams are permanent and temporary (Pauleen, 2003). For purposes of this dissertation, attention will not be given to the time that virtual teams have been in place; instead more focus will be directed to the effect of team leadership on outcomes (Bal & Teo, 2001). Conversely, others disagree on the extent to which interdependence and interaction occur across these groups. Some believe that virtual teams interact more than conventional ones. Once again, focus in this paper will not be on the extent of the duration but the cognitive character of the team. The degree of reliance on technology is also another point of debate (Brake, 2005). However, all scholars believe that these individuals rely on technology most of the time with only occasional use of face to face communication. Four characteristics must be fulfilled in order for a team to be recognized as virtual. It must have a common purpose, it must be enabled by communication technology, it must be geographically dispersed and involve collaboration across boundaries. Other characteristics that may or may not be consistent are the size, permanence, knowledge and affiliation to certain companies. Most times, virtual teams are knowledge workers and are not permanent. They may or may not belong to different companies (Ebrahim et. al., 2009). Virtual teams have gained a lot of prominence in various institutions due to the proliferation of information technology in business. Therefore, medium, small and large organizations may adopt this approach to project work depending on their goals (Crowley, 2005). However, concern within the paper will be on multinational corporations. The size and geographical dispersion of these companies warrants special attention in the study. These organizations select virtual teams in order to minimize cost and time wastage associated with bringing all members of the group together (Hambley et. al., 2007). Sometimes experts may be located in different areas, so virtualization allows professionals to make their contributions across great distances. The method also enhances decision making, productivity and response times to tasks. It adds flexibility to the work process and brings about innovation processes transnationally (Lahenius & Jarvenpaa, 2004). Regardless of the above merits, virtual teams present organizations with unique challenges that may not exist in face to face teams (Zaccaro et. al., 2001). Most groups have to work with complex technological applications, which may require prior familiarity or expertise (Zigurs, 2003). When developing conceptual understandings of a problem, these groups often struggle to come to an agreement. It is difficult to control and monitor activities in these teams. Furthermore, such groups must follow through on decisions in a structured way. The model is vulnerable to communication breakdowns, power struggles and mistrust (Bergiel et. al., 2008). Furthermore, the distance between these team members creates challenges in project management. Technophobia is a real problem for companies using virtual teams and so is cultural diversity. Issues concerning conflict management may also be difficult in this set up. 2. Problem statement Given the above unique traits of the virtual team, it is clear that leadership challenges may also be associated with this dilemma. Since virtual teams are dispersed across various locations that limit direct interaction, then leaders must confront problems that emanate from this feature. Additionally, leadership challenges will also emanate from the reliance on technology communication of these team members. Essentially, it becomes difficult for leaders to assess team performance on tasks. They will find it difficult to mentor and develop employees in these scenarios(Gassmann & Zedtwitz, 2003). Team development may also become difficult to accomplish because of challenges in coaching or mentoring (Geister et. al., 2006). Therefore, leaders are expected to disperse some of these functions to the team itself. In fact, just the relevance of monitoring team performance by the leader maybe put into question (Kirkman et. al., 2002). Virtual teams have a need to monitor their performance, evaluate it and give feedback. The leader needs to provide a clear direction on how this can be accomplished. Their role is to establish mechanisms and process that ought to be reinforced by members. They may approach the task through creation of habitual routines. Additionally, they can work towards training these members and motivating them to comply with the procedures. Leaders have the responsibility to set guidelines and specific behavior among team members (Bell & Kozlwoski, 2002). The need to closely monitor one’s external environment cannot be forgotten in the virtual team as these environments keep changing with time (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000). Therefore, leaders may have to step in order to facilitate adoption of these changes. High intensity conditions may arise in virtual teams and unless team members are committed to the objective then little can be accomplished (Black & Edwards, 2000). As a result, it is necessary to motivate these individuals in order to facilitate team effectiveness. Leadership in virtual teams is unique, and such issues can be amplified in multinational corporations (Kramer, 2005). It is critical to study how leaders cope with these challenges. Most literature on the subject focuses on western countries. It would be insightful to look at this parameter from the perspective of the Saudi Arabia multinational environment. If leaders do not reconcile the special circumstances under which they operate with new leadership strategies, then they are likely to experience failure in project work. Additionally, it is necessary for these leaders to understand how they can deal with these differences (Hertela et. al., 2005). a)Theoretical framework The adaptive structuration theory (AST) will form the background against which this research will be conducted. This is a theory that explains the relationship between social interaction, technology use and group outcomes within an organization. It can be applied to virtual teams because of their heavy reliance on technology for interaction. Chudoba & Maznevski (2000) explain that the theory focuses on technology’s effect on interaction. AST posits that the structural traits of technology will shape interactions between users but only the users can determine how to shape those processes (Gasson & Elrod, 2003). This theory is preferable to others because it finds a way of merging both structural factors of technology use as well as group dynamics. Most theories tend to select one or the other. Therefore, it would be critical to study how these two are interrelated. The theory presumes that virtual teams are mediated by four key characteristics: structural traits of technology, appropriation of the technology, decision processes and decision outcomes. Some of the structural traits involved in technology use include selection of the right form, training, and security of the technology. Selection of technology could depend on the richness of the information and implementation. Conversely, the manner in which the technology is implemented is also covered under the title of selection. Leaders require training on team development for virtual teams. Security involves the protection of sensitive information across the internet (Ebrahim et. al., 2009). Appropriation of technology encompasses the process of learning about the selected technology, reward structures, specifying objectives, meeting and also training. Objective specification may also be a point of concern in this matter. Virtual team leaders have the responsibility of selecting the right employees for the job. Establishing the right outcome priorities and creating the right team climate are also quite relevant. Having fair and consistent reward structures motivates teams to improve. Training in technology, communication, self managing are all relevant to virtual teams (Mowshowitz, 1994). Team leaders have to decipher which forms of training are appropriate (Larsen & McInerney, 2002). Specifying objectives is imperative for team leaders. However, this must not approached from the typical perspective of the traditional leader. One must apply direct leadership minimally in this model. Instead, it would be favorable to focus on coaching this function (Strausak, 1998). Decision processes involve performance measurement, alignment, team facilitation, and meeting structure (Mogale & Sutherland, 2010). Leaders need to spearhead the alignment of organization processes with virtual team processes. This is often accomplished through knowledge sharing (Hale &Whitlam, 1997). Meeting structures involve formalizing team structures so as to improve task output (Holland, 1998). Leaders in virtual teams need to rethink their strategy for measuring performance as empowerment would be a workable option. Team facilitation needs to occur through clarification of roles and temporal coordination through deadlines; these are all leadership responsibilities. Theoretical framework (Ebrahim et. al., 2009) 3. Research Objectives The research will have one primary objective and four secondary objectives as follows: a) Primary objective To determine the extent to which virtual team leaders in Saudi Arabia reconcile project outcomes with team challenges. The title of the report was to investigate leadership challenges associated with management of virtual teams in Saudi Arabian multinationals. Literature has shown that most of the problems in virtual teams emanate from team dynamic and technology challenges (Gibson & Cohen, 2003; Fiol & O’Connor, 2005; Davidow & Malone, 1992; Venkatraman & Henderson, 1998; Larsen, 1999). Project outcomes are a measure of the success of a project and could be assessed through customer satisfaction, team member satisfaction, use of organizational resources effectively (budget adherence), high quality work, and the use of organizational time effectively (Deadline adherence) (Orlikowski & Schultze, 2000). For purposes of narrowing down this research topic, project outcomes as assessed through team member satisfaction will be the key measure of project outcomes. Team challenges on the other hand may be defined through a myriad of variables. Regardless of the definition one chooses, it is clear that these challenges emanate from the unique circumstances of the virtual team (Furst et. al., 2004). These circumstances have been outlined in the theoretical framework under three categories that include: technology structure, appropriation of technology as well as decision processes. Group dynamics and technology are the key sources of challenges for virtual team leaders. b) Secondary objectives The secondary objectives will emanate from the previous paragraph. Team challenges may come from structural, decision making or appropriation issues. These will form the basis for the secondary objectives. i) To establish the relationship between technology structure and project outcomes as mediated by virtual team leaders in Saudi Arabian MNCs ii) To assess whether virtual leaders’ approach to the appropriation of technology has an effect on project outcomes in Saudi Arabian MNCs iii) To investigate the extent to which virtual leaders’ management of decision processes alter project outcomes in Saudi Arabian MNCs. Therefore, the dependent variable in all these secondary objectives is project outcomes. As mentioned earlier, project outcomes can be evaluated through different platforms, this project will focus only on project outcomes as assessed through team member satisfaction (Gliner & Morgan, 2000). The independent variable in the first secondary objective is leadership mediation of technology structure. This parameter may also be measured through a series of parameters. However, this analysis will only focus on selection of the right technology. Team member assessment of the appropriateness of technology as selected by their leaders will be assessed. The independent variable in the second research question is technology appropriation. From the theoretical framework, it is possible to measure technology appropriation through rewards, team structure, training, team member selection and objective specification. This variable will be assessed through team leaders’ assessment of team selection. Finally, the independent variable in the third research question is leaders’ management of decision processes (Kirkman et. al., 2001). This paper will only focus on one dimension of that parameter and it is team facilitation. Team members will be expected to give their feedback on the extent to which they thought their virtual team leaders facilitated team processes. Aspects of moderation will be given more emphasis than controlling (Duarte & Snyder, 2001). Research Questions Main research question: To what extent do virtual team leaders in Saudi Arabia reconcile project outcomes with team challenges? Secondary research questions: i) What is the relationship between technology structure and project outcomes as mediated by virtual team leaders in Saudi Arabian MNCs? ii) Do virtual leaders’ approach to the appropriation of technology have an effect on project outcomes in Saudi Arabian MNCs? iii) To what extent do virtual leaders’ management of decision processes alter project outcomes in Saudi Arabian MNCs? The latter questions all come from the research hypothesis. 4. Literature review Several of the articles on virtual teams tend to dwell on team dynamics and effectiveness. Chudoba and Maznevski (2000) wanted to establish a model for the workings of global virtual teams. Using several mixed methods, they found that deep rhythm face to face communication and communication patterns were responsible for outcomes. Dean (2000) carried out an empirical analysis of team processes that affect performance in teams. Minimal reference was given to leadership. Morgeson (2005) was interested in studying the effectiveness of external leadership in self managed teams. This study was not specifically centered on virtual teams although its definition of self-managed teams could encompass them. Majchrzak et. al. (2004) did random case studies to analyze why virtual teams can become more successful than conventional ones. No empirical testing was done in the paper so generalizability is an issue. While most of these articles are quite useful, they do not discuss leadership issues explicitly; this thesis will attempt to fill the gap. Some paper does talk about leadership in virtual teams. However a number of them are too narrow to be of any use to the discussion. Konradt & Wuerzburg (2006) only looked at the effect of process feedback on virtual team. One wonders what happens to the other components of communication. Jarvenpaa et. al. (2004) created their own virtual teams in which they studied the effect of trust. Trust is useful in leadership but there is still more that affects team performance. This paper will study team dynamics in general. Saunders et. al. (2004) explored on-time visions in virtual teams. This analysis did not relate to leadership specifically, as will be the case in the dissertation. Conversely, other papers on leadership in virtual teams are too general and only rely on secondary data. Hunsaker and Hunsaker (2008) came up with guidelines for leadership in virtual teams using literature on the subject. Brake (2006) also establishes guidelines for global leadership of virtual teams. However, this time, he relies on his own personal experience. Bell and Kozlowski (2002) did a typology of virtual teams with leadership in mind. This paper also relies on a literature review of previous works. Other authors actually specific that theirs is a literature review (Ebrahim et. al., 2009; Curseu et. al., 2008; Gazor, 2012). This thesis will focus on primary data collection in order to tip the balance regarding too much focus on abstract theory. 5. Research methodology This research will rely on quantitative methodologies. A lot of work has already been done on virtual team leadership. Therefore, the purpose of this analysis will be to verify certain assertions in literature. Quantitative analysis is quite appropriate for such a study. Additionally, the secondary objectives in the thesis revolve around establishing relationships between two parameters. Scholars agree that the best approach to such research questions is quantitative research. It allows one to measure and verify information accurately. Therefore the research paradigm in this case will be positivist. Also, one may describe the study as cross sectional because participants will only be sampled once (Charmaz, 2006). Data will be collected through the survey method. Leaders and members of virtual teams will be involved in the study. Five Saudi Arabian Multinationals will be sampled and they include: Saudi American Oil Company (ARAMCO), Zain Said Arabia, Saudi Arabian Basic, Industries Corporation (SABIC), Advanced Electronic Company Limited and Mobily. A total of 100 respondents will be involved in the analysis. 10 of them will represent top level management. Each of these leaders must manage virtual teams. Leaders will be selected on the basis of the number of virtual teams handled. Therefore, purposive sampling will be used. The remaining 90 will be members of virtual teams. Each of the five organizations will send a total of 18 virtual team members who may or may not have participated in the same projects. These individuals will be randomly selected because the only relevant criterion is their contribution to virtual teams. The members will be expected to respond to structured questions which will be closed ended. Most of the questions will center on members or leaders’ assessment of a certain parameter. Team member assessment of the appropriateness of technology as selected by their leaders will be ranked through a five point scale starting from highly appropriate to least appropriate (Lipnack & Stamps, 2000). Team leaders’ assessment of team selection will also be analyzed by a five point rating scale. Participants will state whether or not they chose the right members for a project. Team members will give their feedback on the extent to which they thought their virtual team leaders facilitated team processes through a series of questions that rank their performance. On the other hand, project outcomes will be measured through team members’ satisfaction rating. Once all the data has been collected, it will be analyzed through SPSS software and Pearson rank correlation coefficient. The value of the coefficient will illustrate whether the responses were related to the research objectives. 6. Ethical Issues Ethics in this research is to be strictly maintained by the researcher by keeping all the responses obtained confidential as per the rules of targeted multinational companies in Saudi Arabia. Besides, prior permission will be taken by the researcher from the targeted multinational companies in Saudi Arabia. 7. Research limitations. i. This study is limited to Saudi Arabia ii. This research discusses only the challenges faced by virtual team leaders in the multinational companies with respect to Saudi Arabia. iii. The research will only focus on the role of leadership in managing virtual team and the leadership challenges associated with the management of virtual teams in MNCs. References Bal, J., & Teo, P. (2001). Implementing virtual teamworking. Part 2: a literature review of best practice. Logistics Information Management, 7, 21-98. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 14–49. Bergiel, B., Bergiel, E. & Balsmeier, P. (2008). Nature of virtual teams: a summary of their advantages and disadvantages. Management Research News, 31(2), 99-110. Black, J.A., & Edwards, S. (2000). Emergence Of Virtual Network Organizations: Fad Or Feature. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 1(40), 9. Brake, T. (2005). Leading virtual teams. Industrial and Commercial Training 38(3), 116-121. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through quantitative analysis. London: Routledge Connaughton, S., & Daly, J. (2004). Identification with leader: a comparison of perceptions of identification among geographically dispersed and co-located teams. International Journal of Corporate Communications, 9(2):89-103. Crowley, E. (2005). Managing dispersed teams: new challenges, new solutions. – Handbook of Business Strategy, 3, 209-212. Curseu, P., Schalk, R., & Wessel, I. (2008). How do virtual teams process information? A literature review and implications for management. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(6):628-652. Davidow, W.H., & Malone, M.S. (1992). The virtual corporation: Structuring and revitalizing the corporation for the 21st century. New York: Edward Burlingame Books/Harper Business Press. Duarte, D. L, & Snyder, N. T. (2001). Mastering virtual teams. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Fiol, C. M., & O’Connor, E. J. (2005). Identification in face-to-face, hybrid and pure virtual teams: Untangling the contradictions. Organization Science, 16(1), 19 –32. Furst, S. A., Reeves, M., Rosen, B., & Blackburn, R. S. (2004). Managing the life-cycle of virtual teams. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 6. Gliner, A. J., & Morgan A. G. (2000). Research methods in applied settings: an integrated approach to design and analysis. London: Routledge. Gasson, S. & Elrod, M. (2003). Distributed Leadership Across the Boundaries of a Virtual Organizations. NY: National Science Foundation. Gazor, H. (2012). A Literature Review on Challenges of Virtual Team's Leadership. Journal of Sociological Research, 3(2), 45. Gassmann, O., & Zedtwitz, M. (2003). Trends and Determinants of Managing Virtual R &D Teams. NY: Blackwell Publishing. Geister., S. (2006). Effects of process feedback on motivation, satisfaction, and performance in virtual teams. Journal of Management Development, 37(5), 459-48. Geister, S., Konradt, U., & Hertel, G. (2006). Effects of process feedback on motivation, satisfaction, and performance in virtual teams. Journal of Management Development, 37(5), 459-48. Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hale, R., &Whitlam, P. (1997). Towards the Virtual Organization. London: McGraw-Hill. Hambley, L., O’Neill, T. & Kline, T. (2007). Virtual team leadership: the effects of leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 1-20. Hertela, G., Geisterb, S. & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: a review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review 15, 69-95. Holland, C.P. (1998). The Importance of Trust and Business Relationships in the Formation of Virtual Organizations. Harvard: HUP. Hunsaker, P., & Hunsaker, J. (2008). Virtual teams: a leader’s guide: Team performance management. Management Research News 14, (1/2):86-101. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Shaw, T. R., & Staples, D. S. (2004). Toward contextualized theories of trust: The role of trust in global virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 15(3), 250 –267. Kirkman, B. L., Gibson, C. B., & Shapiro, D. L, (2001). “Exporting” teams: Enhancing the implementation and effectiveness of work teams in global affiliates. Organizational Dynamics, 30(1), 12–29. Kirkman, B., Rosen, B., Gibson, C., Tesluk, P.l & McPherson, S. (2002). Five challenges to virtual team success: lessons from Sabre, Inc. Academy of Management Perspectives, 16(3), 69-79. Kramer, R. J. (2005). Developing Global Leaders: Enhancing Competencies and Accelerating the Expatriate Experience. Melbourne: The Conference Board Lahenius, K. & Jarvenpaa, E. (2004). Managing a virtual team of newspaper journalists: A case study. Journal of Business Communication, 10(7), 173-177. Larsen, K. R. T. (1999). Virtual Organization as an Interorganizational Concept: Ties to Previous Research. Retrieved from http://www.virtual-organization.net Larsen, R.T., & McInerney, R. (2002). Preparing to Work in the Virtual Organization. Information and Management, 6, 17. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams: People working across boundaries with technology. New York: Wiley. Maheswari., R.P. (1997). A Complete Course in ISC Commerce. New Delhi: Pitambar Publishing. Majchrzak, A., Malhotra, A., Stamps, J., & Lipnack, J. (2004). Can absence make a team grow stronger? Harvard Business Review, 12, 137–144. Martins, L., Gilson, L., & Maynard, T. (2004). Virtual teams: what we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 805-835. Maznevski, L., & Chudoba, M. (2000). Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness. Organization Science, 3(19), 21-47. Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual-team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11(5), 473–492. Maznevski, Davison, S., & Jonsen, K. (2006). Creating Effective Virtual Teams. Retrieved from http://www.imd.org/research/challenges/TC058-06.cfm Mogale, L. & Sutherland, M. (2010). Managing Virtual Teams in Multinational Companies. South African Journal of Labor Relations, 15(1), 44. Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-managing teams: intervening in the context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 497–508. Mowshowitz, A. (1994). Virtual Organization. The Information Society, 9, 63. Orlikowski, W., & Schultze, U. (2000). Metaphors of virtuality: shaping a contradictory reality? Information and Organization, 3(14), 55. Pauleen, D. J. (2003). Leadership in a global virtual team: an action learning approach. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(3), 153-162. Rasinger S. M. (2008). Quantitative research in linguistics: an introduction. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Saunders, C., Van Slyke, C., & Vogel, D. (2004). My time or yours? Managing time visions in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 19. Strausak, N. (1998). Organizational Virtualness. London: Routledge. Venkatraman, N., & Henderson, J.C. (1998). Real Strategies for Virtual Organizing. Sloan Management Review, 4(3), 22. Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451–483. Zigurs, I. (2003). Leadership in virtual teams: oxymoron or opportunity. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 339-351. Read More