Chapter 5

Analysis and Findings

Introduction

The focus of this study was on leadership in virtual teams-teams of people who primarily interact electronically and who meet face-to-face infrequently or not at all.  The Delphi technique and case study methods were used to determine if were emerging patterns of leadership practices and information and communications technologies used in leading virtual teams.

This chapter contains three primary sections:  the analysis of data collected from interviews and questionnaires and subsequent findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

Analysis and Findings from the Delphi Study

Responses to the thirteen interview questions were categorized or grouped by frequency or similarity of response and patterns of interest.  This was done to reach a number that is manageable in order to create the second and third questionnaires.  These responses were used to construct twenty-two aspect statements reflecting characteristics of leadership in virtual teams.

            Question 1.  What was the mission or purpose of the team and how was this mission or purpose created or shaped?

Team missions varied considerably.  Some team missions were starting a new business, growing an existing business, developing a course, writing a book, and developing a software product.  Mission statements were generally given to the team; only a few teams were able to shape the mission.   One respondent replied this way.

The team’s purpose was to upgrade an existing software product to a new look and a better interface, including new features and to upgrade to Windows 95 compatibility.

Another respondent provided the following example illustrating a start-up business based from home.

This was a new business start-up consisting of three individuals working out of their homes.  The object was to provide consultation.

There were no identifiable patterns.  The interesting thing to this researcher was the variety of projects virtual teams were used to address.

This question was not explored further in subsequent rounds.

            Question 2.  What has happened so far on the project?  When did it start?  What phase are your in?  What’s next for the project?

            This question was used to obtain information on the history or progress of the project and where it was headed.  This question was not explored further in subsequent rounds.

            Question 3.  What is the structure or organization of the team?

With few exceptions, the teams studied were generally flat (low in hierarchy); organized in a wheel, all-channel, or combination structure; and interconnected electronically.  The wheel and all-channel structure are further described as follows.  The wheel is a structure where relatively independent team members primarily interact with just the team leader and the all-channel structure is one where relatively interdependent team members interact with each other and the team leader.  Wheel structured teams tend to be composed of relatively independent team members producing individual work-products and could be categorized as workgroups.  All-channel or nearly all-channel structured teams tend to be compose of relatively interdependent team members and work-products may be either individual or collective.  A typical combination is one in which sub-team leaders primarily interact with the team leader and sub-team members interact with everyone on their sub-team.  The following three responses are illustrative of the flat structure of most of the teams.

[The XYZ publisher] and I were the editors, the rest of the 100+ team were authors of individual chapters.

Obviously, there is no hierarchical structure to the team.  The project manager has no ruling authority over other members of the team.  Her role is more of a coordinator charged with maintaining the team’s focus.

The team consisted of 3 consultants in the Change Management practice.  There was no team leader; instead, the team members worked together on deliverables and provide insights on their client experiences.

This question was not explored further in subsequent rounds.

            Question 4.  What was your role on this team (team leader, committee chair, team member)?

Respondents played a variety of roles on their teams such as editor, project manager, team leader, regional coordinator, representative, equal partner, and primary coordinator.  There were no identifiable patterns. 

This question was not explored further in subsequent rounds.

            Question 5.  Who did you primarily interact with (all team members, project leaders, etc.) and how?  Did you have any previous interaction with these people before this project?  How?

            This question provides more information about the context of the teams particularly in regards to organizational structure.  Responses to this question were combined with responses to question 3 in order to more completely identify the organizational structures.  The following four responses illustrate the range and similarity of these interactions.

I interact with all fellow project development members (a project manager, two other instructional designers, two content experts, and a technology expert).

I interact with the leaders of the project, as well as the entire 100 affiliates that are members of this project.

All members.

My primary interactions were with the project manager.  I had some direct interaction with the other functional representatives, but most of my dependencies were managed within the team.

This question was not explored further in subsequent rounds.

            Question 6.  Where were the team members physically located?  Why were they not all collocated?

            The virtual teams studied varied in their distribution.  Some teams were distributed in a specific city, some were distributed throughout the United States, and some teams were distributed world wide.  In some cases, only a few team members worked remotely from the remainder of the team.  There were no identifiable patterns in terms of distribution.  The following four responses illustrate the variety of distribution.

At final count, in 7 countries around the world.

The entire team was in Seattle except for myself and the development tester.  We are in Minneapolis.

Members were located at their homes.  We were not collocated since we did not want to incur the expense of offices and support.

Across the US:  LA, Washington DC, Patuxent, MD, Connecticut, Orlando, UK, Germany, Netherlands.  Co-location is not an option.

This question was not explored further in subsequent rounds.

            Question 7.  How were the team members selected and why?

            There were no identifiable patterns of team selection.  Some team members were selected because they were qualified, some were selected because they were available to work on the project, and some were invited to participate.  The following four responses illustrate the variety of selection methods.

Peer review of submitted chapter proposals.

For the pilots, the team members either volunteered or their names were given to our development team by representatives in their offices. 

Team members were selected based on the needs to employ people to help run this organization.

The three partners selected each other to form the company.  Associates were selected based on their experience and knowledge of groupware and collaboration skills.

This question was not explored further in subsequent rounds.

            Question 8.  What information and communication technologies (telephone, e-mail, conferencing, project management software, etc.) did the team use?

Electronic mail and the telephone were the two primary technologies used by the teams.  FAX, Lotus Notes, and voice and video conferencing were used by a few teams.

This question was not explored further in subsequent rounds.

            Question 9.  Can you provide examples of when team members met face-to-face?  Did sub-teams meet more frequently?  Was face-to-face contact important?  Why?

            Seven aspect statements were created from the responses to this question for subsequent study.  These statements were:

1.      Face-to-face contact was not important.

2.      Face-to-face meetings were important in creating ties and relationships.

3.      Face-to-face contact was important in order to understand each other.

4.      Face-to-face contact was important in order to address controversial issues.

5.      Face-to-face contact was important to resolve conflict among team members.

6.      Face-to-face contact was important for planning.

7.      Face-to-face contact was important for problem solving.

            The rating of the top four aspect statements on the importance of face-to-face contact at the end of questionnaire #2 ranged from a mean of 3.40 to 4.0 or less than complete agreement (rating of 4) of the importance.  However, the modal response was 4 or 5 or “strongly agree” with the importance of meeting face-to-face.  There was a slight improvement in these ratings on questionnaire #3.  However, in both questionnaires #2 and #3, the range of responses was from 1 to 5.  Consensus was not evident.

            The following two responses illustrate the importance of face-to-face contact.

Face-to-face is VERY important.  You yell at the girl from Bell when your phone bill is messed up, not because she is responsible, but because you do not know her face.  Once you have met, you have more compassion and understanding for your fellow team members.

Face-to-face contact is extremely important on this team.  CMC (Computer Mediated Communications) is used primarily for non-controversial, detailed information that typically must be communicated to large numbers of people.  Face-to-face meetings are needed to address controversial issues, resolve conflicts among team members or sub-teams, and to manage priorities and resources.

But there were other virtual teams where face-to-face contact was just not that important, for example, those teams with relatively independent team members producing individual work-products rather than collective work-products.  Face-to-face contact also didn’t seem important for a number of teams during the operational phase.  The following two responses illustrate this notion.

Except for [co-team leader] and I meeting, there was only the occasional FTF at a conference which was not related to this project.  So no, FTF was not important, except for [co-team leader] and myself.

We never met FTF during this project.  I don’t think it was necessary to have that contact in this instance.  This was an upgrade of an existing product, so everyone had fairly substantive knowledge and expectations of the product.

Table 4.1 presents the distribution of response data for questionnaires #2 and #3 and for the seven related aspect statements. 

            The following comments were received from the respondents regarding this question.

Aspect 1:  Face-to-face contact was not important.

Questionnaire #2 comments:

Comment.  Although the team can function on its own, it is much more difficult to have friction between people that you can put a face to.  Teams that have never met risk the argument over progress or direction caused by the inability of a disembodied voice to command authority.

Comment.  A virtual environment must compensate for the innate lack of personal, face-to-face contact.  We are at essence still social creatures and we need to SEE our peers, teammates, and our boss frequently.  My best estimate is that this lack of face-to-face contact should not exceed two weeks maximum.  Better is once a week minimum contact for those working in a virtual environment.

Comment.  Though it would have been nice to meet with people FTF, it wasn’t necessary to the completion of the project.  I think some of the review processes would have gone more smoothly if the persons involved had met FTF at one point or another.

Comment.  Comments from participants in each of our 6 pilots indicate a desire for FTF interactions to be incorporated into the course.

Comment.  I found that initial contact and minimal periodic contact was essential in maintaining a cohesive team.

Questionnaire #3 comments:

Comment.  FTF meetings are very important and may be the biggest lacking in a virtual team.

Comment.  I still believe that except in very special cases, those being where a member of the team can work wholly on his/her own, without any communications with the rest of the group, that FTF promotes an understanding and a comprehension that is needed for the project to succeed.

Aspect 2:  Face-to-face meetings were important in creating ties and relationships.

Questionnaire #2 comments:

Comment.  More so, they’re critical to MAINTAINING and REENFORCING relationships.

Comment.  Participants who did experience a FTF kickoff meeting for the “virtual” experience felt like they really bonded and interacted as teams.

Questionnaire #3 comments:

            Comment.  FTF meetings help bind the team together, partly because other, “non-job” issues can be talked about and people get to know each other better.

            Comment.  Cultural boundaries are more understood FTF.

            Comment.  It is hard to realize that they may be something in common with the individual one is working with (i.e., fishing, bowling) where FTF may give a visual clue or chance remark that would not have occurred otherwise.  It is these bonds that sometimes increase a feeling of “membership” in a team.

            Comment.  Initial contacts were extremely important to the success of the teams to establish consensus goals and mission statement.

Aspect 3:  Face-to-face contact was important in order to understand each other.

Questionnaire #2 comments:

Comment.  Especially where ethnic differences or handicaps come to play.  Often times, ones ethnicity will cause a reaction to certain comments or actions.  Also, a handicap, or a physical attribute that is not necessarily evident in voice meetings may lead to unfortunate comments by members of the team.  Once face-to-face contact has been established, certain respect filters in to the team.

Comment.  I agree.  We pickup and transmit most of our communications via visual signals and body movements and positions.  These clues, and this input, is lost in a virtual setting.  Video conference calls don’t replace being there; for instance, you can’t see what the people off-camera are saying and doing.  Actions do speak louder than words, whether the words are written, spoken, or transmitted electronically.

Comment.  We all communicate in non-verbal ways.  Statements may be given more weight if body language or facial expressions support them. 

Potentially, some miscommunication may have been avoided if FTF communication had been available.

Comment.  All participants communicated quite effectively using groupware (Lotus Notes) and were able to understand one another without the FTF interactions.

Questionnaire #3 comments:

            Comment.  Building understanding builds trust, and trust is what builds teams and binds it together.

            Comment.  I’ll stay with “strongly agree” on this question for two primary reasons:  (1) because of the absence of non-verbal cues in virtual interactions (cues that my experience has shown are fundamental to our ability to truly “understand each other”), and (2) because of the unavoidable fact that some people have limited writing skills, and are thus less able than others to convey their true feelings in a text-based medium.

Aspect 4:  Face-to-face contact was important to address controversial issues.

Questionnaire #2 comments:

Comment.  For several reasons, many mentioned above.  In-person, time becomes less of a consideration, and sufficient time is sometimes all that’s needed to resolve misunderstandings.  Virtual contacts can create artificial time constraints, either because people sometimes become aware of excessive computer or network time during resolution and seek to terminate the session, or because people’s productivity begins to fall-off when they hang on the line too long.  It’s hard to stay focused when you’re at the end of the food chain.

Comment.  I can think of one occasion where disagreement occurred that was more effective because of the lack of FTF.  Emotional response can be minimized in non-FTF communication.

Comment.  There were no controversial issues.

Comment.  All of these can be done at a distance.  There are occasions; however, that it is BENEFICIAL to have FTF contact (i.e., contract negotiations, celebrations/recognition after controversial sessions or closure).

Comment.  On occasion, this was important.  However, my guess is that it was less than 30% of the time.

Questionnaire #3 comments:

            Comment.  Controversial issues require more time and more input to resolve.  Most of what we communicate is transmitted and received via non-verbal (and therefore non-written) clues.  These clues and this communication can only be effective in a FTF setting.

            Comment.  The bandwidth did not allow the emotion of the moment to be expressed.  Some may feel that emotion should not be there, but it sometimes is one’s ability to express emotion that can convey a sense of urgency or lightness to an issue that others are misreading.

Aspect 5:  Face-to-face contact was important to resolve conflict among team members.

Questionnaire #2 comments:

Comment.  The few minor conflicts that did arise were managed via groupware or the telephone and were handled effectively.  FTF was not an option.

Comment.  Again, can be done at a distance.

Comment.  On occasion, this was important.  However, my guess is that it was less than 30% of the time.

Questionnaire #3 comments:

Comment.  Comments were the same as for aspects 3 and 4.

Aspect 6:  Face-to-face contact was important for planning.

Questionnaire #2 comments:

Comment.  Once the team is established, planning can be done via other methods.  FTF may help in some circumstances, however, there is a tendency to want the entire team present, and they cause too many open lines of communication for it to be conducive to quick planning, which is what you want in a one or two day meeting.

Comment.  Agree, but less strongly than for establishing and maintaining relationships or for resolving misunderstandings.

Comment.  I think FTF in the planning stage would have smoothed some future misconceptions and communications.

Comment.  With regards to planning for the faculty before each pilot session, they requested one on one sessions with the coordinator to understand their responsibilities and the software.  FTF put them more at ease and allowed their questions/concerns to be addressed immediately.  There was no FTF planning on the part of the participants.

Comment.  The review of planning documents suffers because we do not gather people around a table.  Instead we tend to send out electronic copies of the planning documents, which few people read.  Planning itself, however, seems to take on a life of its own after an initial FTF kick-off meeting.

Comment.  Initial contact for planning purposes was crucial.

Questionnaire #3 comments:

Comment.  A lot of planning stuff can be administered via e-mail and the written word, it’s less “verbal-intensive” than people issues like personal conflicts.  I’m neutral on this question.

Comment.  If the team is professional and knows where they are headed, the planning stage can be done without meeting FTF.  Only confirmation meetings may be needed, or nothing at all.

Comment.  I still think this is crucial.  The complexity of the project along with the naiveté of the users with respect to the virtual environment made this very important.  Finally, the element of trust that must be established with suppliers and team members is most easily gained in an initial FTF meeting.

Aspect 7:  Face-to-face contact was important for problem solving.

Questionnaire #2 comments:

Comment.  It may help to have had face-to-face in the past, however, for any particular problem, it is not necessary during the problem solving phase.

Comment.  Remote problem solving takes a longer time and has more errors that FTF problem solving, no doubt related to miscommunication.

Comment.   FTF was not needed for problem-solving.  Most problems were solved by discussions in groupware.  Most technical problems were solved by communications over the phone.

Comment.  Free information flow and self-directed team members get problems solved very well.

Comment.  For most problems, FTF was not necessary.

Questionnaire #3 comments:

Comment.  Problem-solving, to me, requires more “content-rich” communications and therefore more FTF contact.  I think it’s important and more efficient to resolve problems FTF.  Also, final agreement on the solution can be sealed with a handshake and a look into the other person’s face–very important human commitment steps.  These are not possible electronically.

Comment.  My experience has shown that problem solving is one of the best examples of the utility of virtual interaction.  Because participants can view the problem critically, without the interruptions common in FTF meetings, and take time to consider possible options carefully before positing them, the solutions arrived at with the help of virtual interaction are generally better than those arrived at in FTF meetings.

Comment.  The skill is doable alone, but team attacks on a problem are often more fruitful.  It is easier to spend 6 hours in a room with someone else than 6 hours on a phone with them.

Summary of Question 9 and Question 9 Aspect Statement Responses 

Face-to-face contact was generally considered important in most teams, especially in the formative stages, but less important in the operational phase. 

Factors found important for team members in meeting face-to-face include:  creating ties and relationships with other team members, reducing potential conflicts among team members, building a cohesive team, achieving consensus on team issues, improving the effectiveness of communications (social cues are evident), and for rewards and recognition.

Two factors were found in which face-to-face contact was considered less important.  These two factors were:  (1) the team members were relatively independent and produced individual work products, and (2) the team members knew each other and for this project, they agreed it was not necessary to meet.

            Question 9.  Can you provide examples of when team members met face-to-face?  Did sub-teams meet more frequently?  Was face-to-face contact

important?  Why?

            There were 12 responses to this question in questionnaire #2.  There were 9 responses to this question in questionnaire #3.

Table 4.1

Distribution of Response Data to Aspect Statements of Question 9

Note:  Mn refers to mean, Md refers to mode, and Rg refers to range.

            Question 10.  Can you provide examples of where individual or team accomplishments were celebrated?  If not, would there have been any if the team had been collocated?

Four aspect statements were created from the responses to this question for subsequent study.  These statements were:

8.      There were no team celebrations of accomplishments.

9.      Team members were given positive feedback, praise, or recognition on-line.

10. Accomplishments were celebrated FTF at the end of the project.

11. Accomplishments were celebrated during intermediate FTF meetings.

The rating of these aspect statements on the importance of celebration and recognition at the end of questionnaire #2 ranged from a mean of 2.3 to 3.4 or from a “do not agree” to just above a neutral rating.  The highest rated aspect statement was on recognizing team members on-line.  This is perhaps not too surprising due to the difficulty and expense in bringing distributed team members together.  There was very little change in the responses from questionnaire #3.  The range of responses in both questionnaires #2 and #3 were almost identical except for one aspect statement.  The responses ranged from 1 to 5 for some aspects and 1-4 for others,  indicating there was no real consensus. 

The following four responses illustrate the notion of individual and team celebrations.

We celebrated our accomplishments as a matter of course in our daily online communications.

Team accomplishments are celebrated in two ways:  Through e-mail acknowledgments from executive management, and through FTF celebrations.

No.  This team is for the purpose of sharing information and coordinating the development of that information (within the constraints of company budgets and priorities).

Participants don’t technically “celebrate” accomplishments, but rather receive positive feedback, words of praise, etc. for a job well done.

Table 4.2 presents the distribution of response data for questionnaire #2 and for the four related aspect statements. 

            The following comments were received from the respondents regarding this question.

Aspect 8:  There were no team celebrations of accomplishments.

Questionnaire #2 comments:

Comment.  They occurred by happenstance.  Should we find ourselves in the same town at the same time, we would meet and celebrate past performance.

Comment.  It’s hard to answer this question with a 1 - 5 rating.  I strongly agree there should be team celebrations of accomplishments, however, the reality for me was that virtual team members weren’t always able to attend these celebrations.

Comment.  Remote team members do not share in celebratory events.

Comment.  There were no celebrations of any sort – sounds drab, doesn’t it?

Comment.  Our culture is one of publicly recognizing the accomplishments of others.  Since the team has a high commitment to “getting the job done,” taking time out to travel across the country for a backslapping session would be seen as a waste of time.  We do manage to gather socially during the course of our work, and that feels more sincere than the big bash for the entire group.

Comment.  There should always be some celebration for accomplishments–conducted according to level of achievement.

Comment.  There were occasional celebrations.

Questionnaire #3 comments:

Comment.  My experience was that there were team recognitions but that they heavily reflected the central location where most of the team was located.  Things like team picnics.  It was not practical or reasonable to fly the four or five “remote” team members there just for a picnic, but it did give us a feeling of being left out. . . . Likewise, rewards and recognition tended to be given nearer the headquarters.  I was given the impression we at the end of the food chain should just be thankful we had a job.

Comment.  Varied widely based on team, project time frame, and location of members.

Comment.  Team celebrations done well, contribute to morale and to team members sense of worth in their job.  As a team leader, I occasionally try to engineer a team celebration by getting us all in the same place at the same time.    But shipping people across country for a large impersonal gathering with a lot of people they don’t know would feel (to us all, I think) like a waste of time and money.  These are highly motivated non-employee people and they would rather their efforts be rewarded with new opportunities than with junkets.

Aspect 9:  Team members were given positive feedback, praise, or recognition on-line.

Questionnaire #2 comments:

Comment.  A requirement for effective work.

Comment.  This didn’t occur and I’m glad, for the following reasons. 

(1) This type of feedback should best be accomplished by the boss in front of the team, and (2) electronic feedback just doesn’t seem right when it comes to personal communications, whether positive or negative.  There’s something in our culture about shaking someone’s hand when you’re thanking them.  This can’t be replaced.  In addition, in larger organizations, Human Resources people might have rules specifying how, where, and when certain awards must be presented.

Comment.  Most communication of a personal nature such as “Job Well Done” was via telephone or voice mail, not by e-mail.

Comment.  Participants were given general feedback; some of the coach’s comments were positive, but most were simply thought provoking.

Questionnaire #3 comments:

Comment.  I strongly disagree.  The quality and quantity of on-line recognition was not the same for people working “more” in a virtual team environment.  Maybe this is the basic problem I encountered, that is, our team was always a mix of “regular” team members at a central location and about one-third of us scattered around the country in a mostly virtual setting.

Comment.  The difference here is simply attributable to my experience.  In the virtual teams I’ve worked in, the on-line medium was commonly used as a vehicle for bestowing praise in a very public way.

Comment.  We like keeping our team members.  They do good, someone has to be told.

Comment.  It is hard to really express or receive a feeling of praise without the response of a peer group at the moment.

Aspect 10:  Accomplishments were celebrated FTF at the end of the project.

Questionnaire #2 comments:

Comment.  No closing celebration was held, that I’m aware of, for the projects I worked on in a virtual setting.  Projects kind of oozed into each other without formal openings or closures.  In my case, I didn’t see anyone from the team for the last 12 months I worked in that environment.

Comment.  Accomplishments were not ‘celebrated’ at all.

Comment.  Well, our customer keeps promising.

Comment.  Projects can be big or small; flying people all over the country for a “small” matter of course project is expensive and time consuming; however, there are many ways to celebrate.

Comment.  Time frames and the type of project along with other issues prevented this.

Questionnaire #3 comments:

Comment.  Our team just seemed to evolve from one project to another with little firm beginnings and endings on specific projects.  Rewards and summaries therefore were far and few between for us in the hinterlands.

Comment.  Again, this is simply what my experience has been.  In the teams I’ve worked in, praise was bestowed and accomplishments were celebrated on-line first and FTF later.  The on-line medium was used to make celebrations timely.

Comment.  One-to-one, we celebrate accomplishments FTF whenever we can.

Comment.  There is a need for closure that can not be accomplished remotely.  In some cases, there may be needs for “good byes” or final expressions of success or frustration with other team members.

Aspect 11:  Accomplishments were celebrated during intermediate meetings.

Questionnaire #2 comments:

Comment.  Celebrations were held, but not for accomplishment, they were drinks to the future.  All too often, once the goal of the team was complete, they would hardly ever meet again.

Comment.  See comment 2 under aspect 3.  Occasional conference calls did recognize service anniversary dates and such things, not quite the same as a team celebration upon the achievement of intermediate team goals.

Comment.  We try to acknowledge accomplishments at all meetings, but do not have a “celebration” agenda item for this purpose.

Comment.  Rarely.

Questionnaire #3 comments:

Comment.  Originally this would happen more often, but as time went on, we found this often made people feel like something was accomplished and that they could lay back a little.  We did give bonuses, or send people out for a night/weekend with the significant other, or what ever, but too many parties tended to take focus away from the main goal.

Comment.  Just didn’t have time to make this happen on a regular basis.  Too bad though because it is important.

Summary of Question 10 and Question 10 Aspect Statement Responses

In general, team celebrations were not used for a variety of reasons:  (1)  the team members were relatively independent and the team was in reality more of a workgroup, and (2) the time and cost required to bring team members together.  Several respondents remarked about the cost or expense associated with bringing people together as one reason for not rewarding or celebrating the accomplishments of the project.  Recognition of individual and team accomplishments was generally given on-line via e-mail or telephone – it conveyed the message at a very low cost.

            Question 10.  Can you provide examples of when team members met face-to-face?  Did sub-teams meet more frequently?  Was face-to-face contact

important?  Why?

            There were 12 responses to this question in questionnaire #2.  There were 9 responses to this question in questionnaire #3.

Table 4.2

Distribution of Response Data to Aspect Statements of Question 10

Note:  Mn refers to mean, Md refers to mode, and Rg refers to range.

Question 11.  Can you provide any examples of team members being challenged, encouraged, rewarded, participating in key decisions, coached, or listened to?  How was their morale?

            Three aspect statements were created from the responses to this question for subsequent study.  These statements were:

12. Team members were continually challenged and encouraged to perform.

13. Team members were challenged by project activities or performance targets.

14. Rewards were primarily intrinsic, e.g., knowledge gained could be applied to future projects.

The rating of these aspect statements on the challenges, encouragement’s, and rewards at the end of questionnaire #2 ranged from a mean 3.8 to 4.1 or from a slightly less than agreement to agreement.  The highest rated aspect statement was that team members were challenged by project activities or performance targets.  There was some overall improvement in both the mean and the range in questionnaire #3.  There was general consensus on aspect statements (13) team members were challenged by project activities or performance targets and (12) team members were continually challenged and encouraged to perform.

The following three examples illustrate the range of responses.

Challenged, encouraged, and coached are at the very nature of the editing and authoring process.

Teams are being challenged by activities that force them to conduct in-depth analyses of their change projects and then create deliverables which, in many cases, they will present to their manager or project team…. The rewards stem from the application of the concepts they learn on their own client case combined with assessments that they can use back on the engagements.

Each team member, partners, and associates, were responsible for the assignments and highly encouraged to interact with other members to identify problems, work tasks, reward efforts by others.

            Table 4.3 presents the distribution of response data for questionnaire #2 and for the three related aspect statements. 

            The following comments were received from the respondents regarding this question.

Questionnaire #2 comments:

Aspect 12:  Team members were continually challenged and encouraged to perform.

Questionnaire #2 comments:

Comment.  As much as possible, however all teams I have formed part of have also tried to share the load as much as possible, trying to keep everyone involved even when they were not really needed.

Comment.  I agree, but in my case the encouragement was generally in a negative vein.

Comment.  I don’t know if this is a function of remote teams, or a function of corporate climate and producer style.  (The producer being the person who “drives” the project.)

Comment.  Most participants felt that the activities they performed were challenging and they were encouraged to analyze further through thought-provoking questions from teammates and the coach.  Participants also felt accountable for their assignments since many involved analyzing their teammates’ deliverables and providing feedback.

Questionnaire #3 comments:

Comment.  This is an issue of leadership and can be done effectively in a virtual environment.

Aspect 13:  Team members were challenged by project activities or performance targets.

Questionnaire #2 comments:

Comment.  The goals were very challenging.

Comment.  Participants felt like they were challenged by the activity goals and tasks that were assigned to them throughout the course.

Comment.  I think that project activities have been more important than targets,  Most of our team consists of contractors, for whom the project is itself a customer.  As a result, they tend to be highly motivated.

Questionnaire #3 comments:

Comment.  Some team members found some activities unchallenging–“not rocket science,” or “for this I went to college.”

Aspect 14:  Rewards were primarily intrinsic, e.g., knowledge gained could be applied to future projects.

Questionnaire #2 comments:

Comment.  In the case of working teams, such as s/w development true.  However in the case of User group conference organizations, there tended to be many perks, such as all expense paid trips to the conferences, dinners, and receptions, special team nights out . . . a few extra days in a different city with nothing to do but explore for the sake of it.  Work teams get a salary.  Volunteer teams get perks.

Comment.  I would tend to disagree.  As I answered during Round 1, our virtual group came into being partially to accommodate corporate downsizings and staff imbalances.  The only intrinsic reward we received was the possibility of staying employed and to find another position within the company prior to our projects winding down.  Again, little pre-planning went into our virtual team’s set-up, it just happened.

Comment.  There were no extrinsic incentives.  Team members may have been personally motivated and self-challenging.

Comment.  The knowledge gained from analyses (during the activities) was directly applicable to their current engagements.

Comment.  That and the having of a job for another year.

Comment.  It was anticipated by some team members that other rewards would be forthcoming.

Questionnaire #3 comments:

Comment.  I’m neutral on this question.  I guess upon reflection that I did take good experiences away from this experience, although my career wasn’t necessarily helped by it.

Comment.  Sometimes, but a pat on the back, and dinner and dancing or a ski weekend for someone who did exceptionally well was never that uncommon.

Summary of Question 11 and Question 11 Aspect Statement Responses

In general, respondents agreed with the importance of challenging, rewarding, and encouraging team members.  Rewards tended to be more intrinsic, perhaps due to the nature of the virtual environment.  Challenges tended to be in the nature of the work, not team leaders challenging team members to improve or work better and smarter.  The rating for this aspect increased slightly from questionnaire #2 to #3.  This could be a reflection of the interpretation of the statement however, and people responding from their perspective.  Some respondents indicated that encouragement was negative.  Overall, however, teams were clearly challenged by the projects they worked on.

            Question 11. Can you provide any examples of team members being challenged, encouraged, rewarded, participating in key decisions, coached, or listened to?  How was their morale?

            There were 12 responses to this question in questionnaire #2.  There were 9 responses to this question in questionnaire #3.

            Question 12.  Have you learned anything interesting about being on a virtual team?  What would you have done differently if the team had been collocated?

Table 4.3

Distribution of Response Data to Aspect Statements of Question 11