Globalteams, whether collocated, virtual, or a combination of both, can be seen as catalysts for new forms for organizing, or as organizational forms in themselves, changing our conceptions about organizational boundaries. With this comes the need to change our conceptions about traditional organizations, and develop new ideas about the role of international human resource management in order to reap the benefits of new team-based structures. Team-based structures in organizations are receiving increasing attention of late, for example, the implications of project-based work (cf. Kaplan & Levinthal, 2015), and an emphasis on managing national, cultural and linguistic complexities in leading teams as a mode of global organizing (Zander, Mockaitis & Butler, 2014). Yet globalteams must be effective in order to surmount the challenges of coordination, interaction across multiple borders and boundaries, and managing multiple stakeholder demands (Mäkelä, Lauring, Butler, Lücke, Pahlberg, Stahl, Lee & Miska, forthcoming). This special issue addresses the important role of globalteams in (re)shaping international organizations.
From January 2019 through April 2019 three other Cal Poly Construction Management students and myself competed in the Chartered Institute of Building’s Global Student Challenge (CIOB GSC). These students were Emmanuel Gonzalez, George King, and Jacob Navarre. The CIOB GSC consisted of a team of four students running their own virtual construction company over six weeks. The challenge operated with MERIT (Management Enterprise Risk Innovation and Teamwork), a game that simulates a construction company. The CIOB GSC is divided into three sections which are the Foundation Years, the Early Years, and the Final Rounds. The Foundation years is considered the practice round. During this phase teams become familiar with the
Organizations face increased global competition and challenges of how best to sustain their competitive advantage in the complex business world. Organizations in the 21st century need to seek alternative methods to operate and be more effective, efficient, and creative. Success in international business requires leaders to be aware of the cultural differences that may influence business practices in other countries (Banutu-Gomez, 2011). Indeed, the system outlined in Bartlett and Beamish’s (2014) textbook entitled, Transnational Management, sets up a framework for international managers to properly assess the effects of distance on business ventures. As shown in the reading, distance is not only represented by pure mileage, but extends into cultural, administrative, global, and economic distances as well, also known as CAGE (Bartlett & Beamish, 2014). Only by properly addressing all frameworks of distance can an organization successfully implement global business strategies. Leaders need to be acutely aware of globalvirtualteams (GVTs) to ensure the success of virtualteams in the 21st century (DuBrin, 2013). I investigated this problem by analyzing the experiences of those who worked in GVTs. The purpose of this study was to determine how transformational leadership is effective in impacting employee satisfaction and if it increases productivity.
In our example, the project planer starts MILOS to set up a new project, i.e. to define a project plan. For his current project, he provides a characterization by specifying the project name (’Distributed workflow management system’), the system architecture type (’Distributed’), and the estimated duration (’2 years’). Before creating a new project plan, he tries to find similar projects conducted in the past that might help him in his planning. The retrieval results show MILOS project plans that have been stored in a project plan database using case-based reasoning technology (see e.g. [Althoff et al 98]). Inspecting the most similar project plan, he can see that this plan used the process model ’Development of distributed systems’ from the MILOS experience base. Hence, he browses the process model library and selects this process model as the basis for his project plan. As a result, the processes from the experience base now define tasks within the project plan. Besides the specification of these processes, their variables, and the possible methods, the corresponding instances in the project plan include the INOs that are attached to the process model objects.
Managerial issues are typically considered to rely on fact and simple truth, whereas leadership perceived, trained, executed and experienced has more nuances and variables to it as a study subject. I wanted my study and reflections to focus on joint responsibility, decentralized power distribution and approach the matter of heading virtualteams on a more abstract and horizontal level. As my methods used for this study are qualitative and exploratory, I did not want to rule out any small things, feelings or perceptions potentially found in the empirical data that do not find in to a managerial frame. In my thesis I will focus on the aspects and qualities that make a good virtual team leader by performing a semi-structured online survey with open-ended questions in a web questionnaire format. My two research questions are as follows:
GVT are teams whose members are located in different countries and rarely meet in person but rely on technology to communicate . We draw on two research streams to understand GVT: Virtual team research, which provides many insights on the dispersion of team members, and Computer-mediated work research, which focuses on the technology aspect of virtualteams . GVT face communication challenges that are less frequently encountered by co- located and nationally homogeneous teams. Most importantly, they are missing many social and emotional cues that are present in face-to-face communication. This leads to difficulties creating trust and accountability in virtualteams. These differences are even more difficult to bridge in a multicultural virtual communication setting because diverse teams have more difficulty to arrive at a shared understanding, i.e. to be on the same page . Their communication is additionally impacted by different native languages, mindsets, and cultures . However,
whether biculturals possess a speciﬁc set of competences which would make them particularly successful as global team leaders. For practitioners our literature review on leading globalteams is of immediate and very hands-on use as it highlights emerging themes important for the future. For global team leaders a speciﬁc set of leadership roles (i.e., boundary spanners, bridge makers and blenders) stand out together with a set of people-oriented leadership styles (i.e., transformational, empowering and shared leadership) and a focus on team performance in form of leveraging global team diversity. Knowledge about differences between team members’ and team leaders’ leadership expectations is helpful for leaders in terms of understanding team members’ leadership preferences as well as for the decision-makers who select team leaders for their globalteams. Here discussions as to the advantages of choosing those who display cultural intelligence, global mindset or who are biculturals demonstrating biculturalism as global team leaders can be most helpful. Vast cross-national differences regarding expectations about leadership and manage- ment practices are not a new phenomenon in contemporary multinational organizations. However, some of our ﬁndings may pose challenges for human resource managers, for example that team leaders and team members differ as to what they list as most important leadership competences and styles. Mentoring and coaching were important for team members, while empowering and managing diversity came highly ranked on the team leaders’ agenda. A more nuanced understanding of team leaders’ and members’ differing expectations, together with a cultural aware- ness of differences in leadership preferences across countries, will strengthen team leaders’ ability to overcome the power paradox described in our review. Our review also highlighted that use of different leadership modes, such as paired, rotated or shared leadership, rather than just resorting to the standard single team leader option, could be applied strategically, not just to manage cultural differences but to actually leverage them. This is certainly invaluable for team leaders and global leaders alike.
In the next phase of the data analysis, I started to categorize the themes that emerged in the transcriptions, grouping more specific themes and items. Here I was dealing with “2nd order data, which are the themes and dimensions originating from the researcher’s theoretically-based interpretations and the informants’ words and actions (Charmaz, 2006). In this phase, theoretically- based expressions such as “swift trust in globalvirtualteams”, “identification of influence strategies and tactics”, or “managers’ emotions” and “task- oriented leadership” were used in revising the initial coding. In this phase, I gradually discovered that certain themes emerged in the transcripts and in the managers’ talk, and started to form groups out of those themes. These groups comprised the themes and topics about which many of the research participants talked. First, several managers described the difficulties entailed in managing virtualteams. They explained that they tried to lead their virtualteams as they would have led co-located teams. According to the managers, leading their employees in “a traditional way” turned out to be both different and difficult in a virtual environment. When I asked them to elaborate on these differences, many of my informants said that one of the biggest differences and challenges was to work out how to influence their virtual employees. Some managers even insisted that the biggest difference between managing virtual employees and co-located employees was apparent in efforts to exert an influence. They spoke of “virtual influence”, in which they attempted to persuade their employees without the benefit of non-verbal cues such as face, nodding, gestures, or body position. While collecting my data and reading more about influence, Harvard Business Review (July-August 2013) published a special issue on influence. In this issue the authors and interviewees advised managers to increase influence for example by leaning forward when talking and by smiling (e.g. Cuddy et al., 2013), but entirely neglected situations in which managers work virtually, i.e. without an opportunity to use such gestures. My participants discussed the methods and tactics they used in attempts to influence their virtual employees and I became ever more interested in the topic. Thus, influence tactics became the first theme for my study.
In a virtual environment, hiring managers are not constrained to a particular geography when selecting new employees. However, the skills required to work in a virtual environment differ somewhat from that of a worker in a more traditional environment. The skills listed below may assist human resource professionals in the recruitment, assessment, and selection of effective virtual team members.
Not only the awareness of intercultural competence is essential, but also the acceptance of the organization and the team as a success factor for virtual multicultural team effectiveness. This emphasized the strategic placement of intercultural competence within a company even more. Only when intercultural competence is treated correctly and is supported the team will lead to success, because the internal cooperation is increased and therefore the team members are open for solving any kind of problem they have to face. The awareness already is partly created in international companies because „if you analyze job openings, interview managers and Human Resources representatives or study the literature – one requirement of the future employees is constantly articulated – teamworking skills. It became one of the most important key qualifications” (Bender, 2009:1). These teamworking skills contain social competence, motivation, openness, cultural sensitivity, awareness etc. and therefore can be understood as a need for intercultural competence. In Human Resources this need is also described as a pure passion for people. With this kind of passion it becomes easier to adjust to different people, to get to know their needs and consequently to work more effectively together with them.
During the last d e c a d e , w o rds such as “virtual”, “virtualization”, “virtualized” have been very often advocated by scholars and practitioners in the dis cus s ion of social and economic is s u e s (Vaccaro et al., 2008) but the advantages and pitfalls of virtual team is concealed. The availability of a flexible and configurable base infras tructure is one of the main advantages of agile virtualteams . A nderson et al. (2007) suggest that the effective us e of communication, es pecially during the early stages of the team’s development, plays an equally important role in gaining and maintaining trus t. Virtual R&D teams which members do not work at the same time or place (Stoker et al., 2001) o ften face tight schedules and a need to start quickly and perform ins tantly (M unkvold and Zigurs , 2007). Virtual team may allow people to collaborate more productivit y a t a dis tance, but the tripe to coffee corner or acros s the hallway to a trus ted colleague is still the mos t reliable and effective way to review and revis e a ne w id e a (Ga s s ma nn and Von Zedtwitz, 2003a). As a drawback, virtualteams are part ic u la rly vulnerable to mis trus t, communication break downs , conflicts, and power struggles (Ros en et al., 2007). On the other hand, virtualteams redu c e t ime -t o-market (M ay and Carter, 2001). Lead time or time to market h a s b e e n g enerally admitted to be one of the mos t important keys for succes s in manufacturing comp a n ie s (S o rli e t al., 2006). Table 3 summarizes some of the main advantages and Table 4 some of the main dis advantages as s ociated with virtual teaming. W e are in a trans ient phas e that is pu s h in g o u t b eyond t h e e n v e lo p e o f team fundamentals into a space where we begin to los e track of reality (Qureshi and Vogel, 2001). Clearly the rise of network technologies has made the us e of virtualteams feas ib le (Beranek and Martz, 2005). Finally organizational and cultural barriers are another serious impediment to the effectiveness of virtualteams . Many managers are uncomfortable with the concept of a virtual tea m b e c a u s e succes s ful management of virtualteams may require new methods of supervis ion (Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999).
The benefits of internal monitoring should suppress the effects of cognitive trust because they work to promote cooperation and coordination in much the same way as cognitive trust. Internal monitoring can increase the effort put forth by individuals. Team members are more inclined to exert effort when they believe others are watching [2,38,45], which is one of the benefits associated with cognitive trust. The process of observing the actions of one’s teammates requires both continued attention and contact among team members [21,67]. This continued attention and contact ensures that team members are kept aware of one another’s activities . Awareness of one another’s activities allows team members to synchronize their actions [48,73]. For example, Marks and Panzer  found that when flight simulation teams observed what their teammates were doing, this acted as a feedback mechanism that improved coordination and led to better flight performance on the simulation. Contact, awareness and synchronization, facilitated through internal monitoring, all act as mechanisms to promote coordination and cooperation within teams [45,62].
The trend towards increased utilization of virtualteams can also be seen in actual individual and organizational behavior. Organizations have recognized the value of telecommuting or remote users evidenced by growth of as much as 900% in the number of organizations surveyed in 2004 using telecommuting or remote users (Johnson, 2004). Simultaneously, the general population has indicated its increased comfort with technology by the increased utilization of secure transactions such as e-banking (Bielski, 2004). More recently, reduced cost and availability has changed the urban dynamic and led less need for organizations to establish their offices on a single physical location (Ioannides et al, 2008). The implication is a separation of function and geography. One can find further support for this trend by considering the growth of outsourcing going beyond the traditional areas to include service provision (Narayanan et al, 2011). The organizational benefits of outsourcing include access to workers with a better match of skills, reduced cost, and data access. Employees see the benefit of reduced travel, time, and an improved support for sustainability (Wheelen and Hunger, 2010).
Power distance is “the degree to which the culture believes that institutional and organizational power should be distributed unequally and the decisions of the power holders should be challenged or accepted” (Lustig & Koester 2010, 114). In high power distance culture, a person’s age, social and professional status play an important role in how he/she communicates with others and expects others to communicate with him/her. While in cultures where the low level of power distance is preferred, above mentioned factors are not perceived as important (Lustig & Koester, 2010). In a global project management context, it may influence how likely are the project team members to be involved in the decision- making process (Binder, 2012). Team members coming from cultures with larger power distance rates may find it more difficult to disagree with their project managers in front of other people (Binder, 2012) and expect project managers to tell them how to act. While individuals from cultures that prefer smaller power distance, expect to be seen as more equal partners to project manager and communicate on a more informal level. Sweden is the country with one of the lowest power distance levels in the world and India is one of the highest (Binder, 2012).
English is definitely our working language. At the same time using English to work is very different as well. My experience is that you feel more comfortable talking to the people who use English as their second language. Sometimes it can be challenging to talk with people whose mother tongue is English. The reason being that when we speak English as a second language, we use the terminology or the language from the textbook, so it is more like a written language in an oral way. [NNS36] When we started to discuss about this global team, to be a global team, I was not that fluent in English. So for me it was really a challenge. I really had to concentrate and study hard to be in a comfort level. Sometimes you were afraid to speak or to participate more in the discussions because you do not want to be like ridiculous or speak incorrect or think oh they will not understand me, or if they come back with a question that I do not understand, how will I do in that situation, so all of this thinking came to your mind…It is a two-way road. I had to force myself and work hard to speak a better language, to communicate better, but it was others work as well to work hard to understand me and understand that was not my native language. So it was a second language for me, but I was very challenged. [NNS37]
Many researchers believed that it is important for an organization to align different task with different technological functions order to obtain performance efficiency and this was parallel to the idea that coordinating different task to applicable virtualteams. Not every team will perform well under the same conditions 
Abstract. Using a mixed-methods approach, we develop the concept of perceived proximity, which is created through communication, shared identity, and the symbolic aspects thereof. Building on previous theoretical work, we create and validate measures of perceived proximity. Then, we compare how perceived proximity and objective distance relate to relationship quality for collocated and geographically dispersed work colleagues. Our results show that perceived proximity (i.e., a cognitive and affective sense of relational closeness) and not physical proximity (i.e., geographic closeness measured in miles or kilometers) affects relationship quality in an international survey of more than 600 people and 1,300 dyadic work relationships. We also find that people’s perceptions of proximity mediate the effects of communication and identification on relationship quality. Using qualitative data (2,289 comments from 1,188 respondents coded into 9 themes), we explore the symbolic meaning of perceived proximity. We show how people can form strong bonds despite being separated by large distances and continue to shift the emphasis from information systems as “pipes” or channels to information systems as vehicles for conveying shared meaning and symbolic value. Our findings have important implications for scholars, managers, systems designers, and members of virtualteams, teleworkers, and other geographically dispersed contexts.
Proposition 3: In globalvirtualteams, a lack of leadership relates to a greater likelihood of free-riding. Free riders do not always start with an intention to free-ride. Although the exploitive intentions are more or less implied in the definition of free riding (Delton, Cosmides, Guemo, Robertson, & Tooby, 2012), our analysis of the responses from those who denied free riding shows that some may have decided to withdraw eﬀort after unpleasant initial contact. These individuals claimed how active they were in the beginning to reach out to the team while receiving little feedback, or how surprising they were to find out that their contribution was excluded in the first milestone deliverables. Thus, they lost motivation and did not know how to contribute further. In these case scenarios, assigning roles and responsibilities to team members in the early stage and ensuring fair procedures and interactions in decision making can be critical. We have provided a short overview of the factors that had been discussed in the literature as possible reasons for free-riding, such as perceptions of (in)justice, identifiability of individual eﬀort and contribution to team cause, role ambiguity, coordination problems, and the like. Although the interviews with free-riders did not allow us to obtain definitive answers with respect to the comparative eﬀect of each factor, we can conclude that it is likely the external factors, rather than personality flaws, play the major role. People free-ride not because they are inherently flawed, but, at least partially, because unfavorable circumstances and problems with team dynamics make contributing to team eﬀorts harder. We deliberately state this proposition in general terms. Research in this area is likely to be very fruitful. Thus, we propose that:
DOI: 10.4236/jssm.2019.124038 550 Journal of Service Science and Management activities that used to be conducted by individuals in the past . The use of virtualteams has also become more prevalent, due to the growing number of in- ternational organizations, offshore outsourcing, global companies, and the fast development of communication tools (hardware and software), yet there is still a gap in empirical research that addresses the effectiveness of virtualteams  and a need to analyze the direct and indirect antecedents of virtual team effectiveness . Considering the growing phenomenon of digital cooperation, the traditional definition of team member “compliance” should be examined in a virtual envi- ronment, studying virtual team members’ behavior and reaction to instructions, or the absence of instructions . The article poses the question whether a face-to-face (hereafter—FTF) team behaves differently from a virtual team with respect to compliance to guidelines and instructions. This research contributes to a better understanding of “compliance” as a form of social influence in virtualteams and hones the differences between FTF and virtualteams in terms of com- pliance. Its practical conclusions may facilitate the way organizations should form and manage virtualteams to improve the teams’ work and self-management in today’s virtual world.
Definitions of virtual team. Virtualteams are ‘groups of people working on interdependent tasks, geographically distributed, conducting their core work mainly through an electronic medium (a) and share responsibility for team outcomes’ (Horwitz et al, 2006, p. 473). They are often “far-flung” not only regionally, but also globally distributed working in the same company or further down the value chain. They may be “communication challenged, culturally challenged and task challenged” (Malhotra, 2003). This definition suggests that efficiencies are achiev- able when operating in this manner though not with- out difficulties. To this effect it is possible to con- ceive teams that are formed quickly, when required, and that can be readily disbanded. Henry and Hartzler (1998) define a virtual team as a ‘group of people that work closely together though geographi- cally separated and may reside in different time zones; and as “cross-functional work groups brought together to tackle a project for a finite period of time through a combination of technologies’. “Virtualteams may therefore work across distance, time, and organizational boundaries” (Langevin, 2004).