1.3 Characteristics of virtual teamwork, a critical perspective

According to Gibson and Gibbs (2006) and Köppel (2007), a number of different criteria are used to characterise virtual teamwork, although most authors agree on the aspects of geographical dispersion and communication that is dependent on electronic devices. These are also the most prominent characteristics commonly studied by scholars. However, as Gibson and Gibbs (2006) argue, the variables dynamic structure, diversity as well as communicative climate need to be added if we want to understand the challenges thrown up by virtuality. This is because they are likely to have unique effects on the performance and satisfaction experienced within the team. Let us look at them in more detail:

• geographic dispersion
• electronic dependence
• dynamic structure
• diversity
• communicative climate

As geographic dispersion of team members can mean both communicating with colleagues from our home office as well as communicating with business partners located in another country, it therefore makes sense to consider geographical dispersion as a continuum, rather than a binary either/or proposition. Thus we can speak of 'the degree' of virtuality or physical dispersion, and this degree is likely to influence the flow of communication into the team and within the team. One of the reasons for this is that team members who are highly dispersed are likely to be embedded in different external contexts and therefore have less shared contextual knowledge, and a far greater understanding of their own specific context. For example, team members who are situated in the same city are likely to anticipate common knowledge related to their environment and may take this knowledge for granted and therefore not feel the need to articulate its relevance to team members from other locations. Co-location is hence likely to facilitate interaction and the development of a common ground of understanding, which in turn supports information sharing. It becomes even more complex when some of the team members have a low level of virtuality and can meet in person, whereas the other members of the team are limited in their interaction due to their geographical location. Physical proximity also influences the possibilities for synchronicity in the team members' virtual interactions. And as the following quote shows, geographical dispersion also means being able to work independently of location and/or time:

"It's awesome that you can communicate with each other regardless of TIME, regardless of location. This means that I don't have to be in a room with two people to discuss some topic, I just write a message in a group chat at eleven o'clock on Thursday evening and get an answer on Friday morning from someone somewhere in [China]."

Given the fact that geographical dispersion has an influence on possible time windows for synchronous meetings, the degree of geographical dispersion is also likely to have an influence on the logistical administration required for gathering and coordinating resources. Making sure that team members are appreciated and not left out of decision processes because they are not physically present is one important factor here. In summary, geographical dispersion poses challenges when dealing with reduced contextual knowledge among team members as well as extra costs for coordinating resources.

Because some teams rely more on technology-mediated communication than others, electronic dependence should also be considered as a continuum along which teams can be located. A team which communicates entirely through e-mails, text exchange and video conferences, for example, is much more electronically dependent than teams which have the opportunity to meet face-to-face at least occasionally. According to research results, reliance on technology-mediated communication influences factors such as monitoring, opportunities for informal feedback, and the ability to interpret information correctly. A crucial side effect of communicating virtually is that it encourages the use of a more direct style of communication with fewer social cues. In text communication, for example, non-verbal cues such as the tone of voice are extremely important in conveying how you wish a message to be understood. Also, opportunities for informal feedback are fewer, and therefore the social framing of messages is less distinct. Difficulties in interpretation not only lead to misunderstandings but also to wrong conclusions and often judgments and assumptions about other team members. In sum, it can be said that the level of electronic dependence may influence the understanding of messages and thus the quality of teamwork.

However, exposure to new technologies and the developing the knowledge and skills related to them is certainly a distinct advantage :

"And ALSO dealing with new technologies. In other companies, which don’t practice working in virtual teams, the technical mindset of employees is developed accordingly."

The next factor, dynamic structure (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006) refers to the frequency with which team membership changes, roles are rearranged and relationships among team members shift. We are therefore talking about the nature and the dynamics of the team structure and its relationships. On the one hand some people might partner with others through informal, temporary and relatively unstructured arrangements, whereas on the other, some teams might be characterised by relative stability, long term duration and established role sharing. The structural dynamics of a team influences the development of trust, the level of uncertainty and perceived risk, and the potential for establishing routines and thus a collective virtual culture. The level of uncertainty felt when working in a team in turn influences the willingness and openness to share information. A high turnover of team members influences the propensity to develop relationships and establish an organisational memory, thereby strengthening social ties and relationships among team members. The strength of these ties guides the amount of interactions, the emotional intensity and the level of reciprocity between team members.

Another feature which requires consideration is diversity. Because technological advancements provide the opportunity to work across national boundaries, in the early literature on virtual teams, scholars such as Gibson and Gibbs (2006) focused their attention on national diversity and thus ‘passport identity’. However, given the fact that team diversity exists along many different dimensions, this is a narrow perspective assuming a high level of homogeneity within countries and nationality as a superordinate determinant of identity. It therefore makes sense that more recently Gibbs et al (2017) started to turn their attention to cultural and functional diversity. Functional diversity is understood to be the degree to which different areas of expertise are present in a team. One of the specific challenges in such teams relates to knowledge integration, since team members from different professional backgrounds may use specific jargon and face conflicting priorities due to their specific function and roles.

Diversity in its broad sense encompasses aspects such as age, gender, educational and work background, socio economic status, parental situation or caring responsibilities. These might be strong sources of identity and influence the teamwork to varying degrees. As the following quote indicates, appreciating and managing diversity has become an important part of most companies' culture:

"At Henkel, we promote a holistic Diversity & Inclusion approach. The diversity of our employees, their backgrounds, experiences, talents, knowledge, creativity, and the appreciation of all their individual differences are the foundation for our competitive advantage. As a multinational corporation, Henkel employs people from 120 nations in almost 80 countries. About 85 percent of our employees work outside of Germany, with more than half of them in emerging markets. We believe that a company culture focused on diversity and inclusion is the key driver of creativity, innovation, and invention."

Source: https://www.henkel.com/company/diversity-and-inclusion (accessed on 30.10.2020, used with permission)

The challenge for virtual teams is thus to identify diversity domains which have a strong influence on teamwork and subsequently clarify the differences in work behaviour which may be linked to these. The team's task is use this diversity as a means to work productively, while viewing differences as an opportunity, and the basis for developing a shared overall work culture and vision.

Cultural diversity encompasses a range of differences in organisational, national and individual cultural affiliations. Despite the fact that national diversity is a rather broad and generalising categorisation, Gibbs et al (2017) argue that it is particularly salient because perceived national cultural differences may be a source of stereotyping, communication barriers and interpersonal conflicts which may hamper team communication, cohesion and shared understanding. They maintain that teams working across national boundaries need to pay particular attention to be aware of and tackle these challenges and communication obstacles.

If we understand cultural diversity based on an open definition of culture, then this means acknowledging membership of a variety of obvious but also less obvious collectives. A collective in this context is a group of people for whom it makes sense to come together for any number of reasons, ranging from a rowing club to a corporate organisation or nation state. This refers to a lifeworld, or living environment understanding of culture, which emphasises the heterogeneity present within the confines of a nation or an organisation, and allows for multiple layers of cultural affiliation and involvement which may overlap or even contradict each other. Team members can thus be considered to be multi-collective. The challenge, when working together, is thus to identify individual membership of collectives which have the potential to support the group's orientation around  commonalities and therefore encourage team cohesion and the creation of normality. Overall it is crucial to identify hitherto unknown differences but also commonalities relevant in the context of the teamwork.

The last feature to be considered relates to the communicative climate. This can be understood as the atmosphere, or the social tone in which a communication takes place or the overall feeling or emotional mood between team members. It focuses on a broad set of communication behaviour and the way team members interact with each other. According to Gibson and Gibbs (2006), a psychologically safe communication climate is one in which team members trust each other and therefore are ready to assume that the behaviour and actions of the other team members will be of benefit to the overall team goals. As a consequence, they are also willing to accept reflective or friction-causing actions such as being vulnerable, admitting mistakes, questioning routines and searching for feedback in order to deal with problems. It is also characterised by mutual support and respect, openness and readiness to take risks. As such, the level of perceived communication climate plays a critical role in supporting team learning and sharing among team members. A positive communication climate supports people's propensity to engage in spontaneous and informal communication, provide unsolicited information, suspend judgement of other team members, raise differences in discussion, remain open to other ideas and perspectives, and engage in active listening. A safe psychological climate also has the potential to bridge any differences which may occur due to the diversity of team members and support people's readiness to use differences as an opportunity rather than a threat or disturbance. In this way the team can develop a shared, positive framing of the concept of difference and thus build a productive virtual team culture. By developing a psychologically safe communication climate, many of the challenges posed by virtuality can be mitigated and even transformed into an opportunity, thus supporting team satisfaction and task performance.

In conclusion, it can be said that virtual teams are teams whose members use a variety of information and communication technologies, are geographically dispersed, are diverse and pursue a common purpose. The degree to which these features are relevant vary, and they may be complemented by other features such as temporary dispersion. The virtuality of a team should thus be considered as a continuum ranging from low to high virtuality. A team with the highest degree of virtuality would be one in which members are located in opposite time zones, are heavily dependent on technologically mediated tools, whose members never get to know each other in persona, and display a high level of cultural and functional diversity.