|
This page summarizes the findings of the dissertation 'A facilitation methodology to effectively support virtual IT project teams' under the three themes Communication, trust and Team development.
1. Communication
“Medium is the message” - McLuhan (1964)
According to McLuhan the medium used to send the message will determine the level of success of communication. The richest communication medium is face-to-face meetings followed by telephone, e- mail, and memos and letters (Rice and Shook 1990). Therefore the medium should be chosen as appropriate in order to communicate the message effectively.
According to Daft and Lengel (1986) the richness of each media is based on four criteria, which are feedback, multiple cues, language variety, and personal focus.
Media Richness Theory from Daft and Lengel (1986) (Wade, 2006, online)
- Immediacy of Feedback: The extent to which a medium allows users to give rapid feedback on the communications they receive.
- Multiple Cues: The number of cues such as text, verbal cues or non-verbal cues available through which information can be communicated.
- Language Variety: The range of meaning that can be conveyed with language symbols (numeric information to natural language).
- Personal Focus: The extent to which a sender can personalize the message to suit the needs and the current situation of the receiver.
Warkentin et al (1999) claims development of relational links among team members can significantly improve effectiveness of communication.
According to Gudykunst (1997), individuals from different cultures vary in terms of communication and group behaviours including motivation to seek and disclose individuating information and in the need to engage in self-categorization. Research has shown that two main behaviour types corresponding to individualistic and collectivist cultures (Hofstede, 1980). In individualistic cultures, the needs, values and goals of the individual take precedence over the needs, values and goals of the in-group. The collectivist cultures the needs values and goals of the in-group take precedence over the needs, values and goals of the individual (Hofstede, 1980).
The author identified the following key areas that can effect communication between teams.
• Relational links: Relational links between team members improved team trust and enhanced communication.
• Diverse methods: Using many communication methods allowed the members chose the best communication method for a given situation.
• Personal focus: Members were more responsive to direct communication and less communicative to broadcast messages.
• Media richness (socio-emotional cues): Rich media included emotions that helped in understanding the message easily.
• Cultural awareness: Cultural awareness enabled members to plan proactively reducing cross-cultural mis-understandings.
• Communication training: Communication training allowed the members to create standards and establish common understanding.
• Feedback: Feedback allowed the communicator to verify whether the message was understood correctly and to improve discussion and knowledge sharing.
(Delpagoda.T, 2007)
2. Trust
"Trust is to manage people whom you do not see”. (Handy, 1995:p41)
According to Kramer (1996, p571) “trust is a psychological state”. Robinson (1996, p.576) defined trust as a person’s "expectations, assumptions, or beliefs about the likelihood that another's future actions will be beneficial, favourable, or at least not detrimental to one's interests".
As to Cummings & Bromiley (1996: p303) a person trusts a group when the person believes that the group “makes a good-faith effort to behave in accordance with any commitments both explicit and implicit, is honest in whatever negotiations preceded such commitments, and does not take excessive advantage of another even when the opportunity is available”.
Trust plays a key role as a foundation for effective collaboration (Kramer 1996), and is a salient factor in determining the effectiveness of many relationships. According to Paul et al (2004) a direct link between trust and collaborative relationship performance exists; once the need for collaboration is established trust becomes the salient factor in determining performance.
According to Holland (1998) trust is influenced by the following factors-
1. The disposition of the individual
2. How well the team members know each other
3. The power relationships between the trustor and trustee
4. The task being undertaken
5. The incentives that are provided
The author identified the following key areas that can improve trust between teams. (Delpagoda.T, 2007)
1 Rewards: Rewards motivated the employees, and improved trust, which was seen as the most effective means during critical project phases.
2 Relational links: Relational links formed initial trust between members and strengthened team integrity. This reduced process losses and improved communication.
3 Shared cultural history: Empowering teams with known members eased the team building process. This eliminated the initial effort of getting to know each other.
4 Anticipation of future association: Future associations motivated the team to create identity and work for better quality and better team interaction.
5 Expertise: Expertise led the teams, and improved trust. Less expertise de-motivated the team and decelerated trust for success.
6 Organizational commitment: Organizational commitment motivated the employees and strengthened the spirit, as the employees get the feeling of being part of organizational success and that the management valued their work.
7 High performance teams: High performance teams needed quick support when required, and appreciation was valued.
3. Team Development
In today’s contemporary organizational context the concept of teams and teamwork has become an important key to productivity and every one is part of one or many teams. Many agree that the team environments improve productivity, morale and quality improvements.
The most common Tuckmann (1965) team development model identifies the team building steps as forming, storming, norming & performing stages. The attention stairway from McFadzean (2002) incorporates team dynamics, facilitator competence and problem solving techniques and further analyses team development.
McFadzean (2002) has identified a variety of variables that influence team productivity from a number of models on team effectiveness. These include personality characteristics, group size, reward structure, work norms, task characteristics, group structure, communication, conflict, information systems, status relationships, technological support and so on. Groups undertaking simple, well-structured tasks do not need to learn group dynamics, rather follow set procedures and guidelines. According to McFadzean (2002) when the task becomes complex, novel and ambiguous teams must develop skills so that they can utilise more powerful problem solving tools and techniques. She further explains that the team should consist of appropriate members with wide range of skills, abilities and experience.
It was mentioned by many authors that constructive behavior patterns improve team effectivity. The following table shows some constructive behavior patterns that can be harvested for better performance. (Adapted from Ishaya & Macaulay, 1999)
|
Dimensions |
Behaviours |
|
Integrity |
Being honest, being straightforward, keeping promises, being faithful and true, timely response, being reliable |
|
Ability |
Demonstrating personal knowledge and competence, demonstrating individual and group skills, sharing individual experiences |
|
Openness |
Informing members, sharing ideas freely, giving feedback, apologising publicly |
|
Benevolence |
Being helpful, being supportive, being friendly, being humble, praising others |
|
Expectations |
Expressing one’s expectations, compromising on individual expectations, being fair in one’s expectations, being consistent |
The main attentive areas in the team were found as personal qualities, task and feelings by the author.
• Personal qualities: Building up personal qualities (mentioned above) showed process gains and reduced process losses. This also improved communication and team integrity.
• Task: Task definition, clarity and ownership provided the team to work in order and reduce confusion. This also allowed the team to create identity within the team.
• Feelings: This allowed the team to build up awareness and better understanding empowering team cohesiveness.
(Delpagoda.T, 2007)
References
Cummings, L. & Bromiley, P. (1996) "The organizational trust inventory (OTI): development and validation" in R.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler (eds) Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory research, Sage publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp302-30
Daft, R. L., and Lengel, R. H. (1986) “Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design,” Management Science (32:5), 1986, pp. 554-571.
Delpagoda, T (2007) Facilitation methodology to effectively support virtual IT project teams submitted to the University of Liverpool
Gudykunst, W.B (1997) “Cultural variability in communication” Communication Research, 24 (4), pp.327-348
Handy, C. (1995) "Trust and the virtual organization", Havard business review, May/June pp.40-50
Holland, C.P. (1998) "The importance of trust and business relationships in the formation of virtual organizations. In Sieber, P. & Griese, J. (eds),
Hofstede, G. (1980) “Culture's consequences”. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Ishaya, T and Macaulay, L. (1999) "The role or trust in virtual teams" published in "Organizational Virtual ness and Electronic Commerce" eJOV (Vol 1, No. 1) ISSN: 1422-9331
Kramer, R.M. (1999) "Trust and Distrust in organizations: Emerging Perspectives, Enduring questions", Annual review of Psychology (50), pp. 569-598
McFadzean, E. (2002a). “Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: part1 - a conceptual model”, Management Decision – MCB UP limited
McLuhan, Marshall (1964) “Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man.” New York: McGraw Hill Publication
Paul, D.L. & McDaniel, R.R. Jr. (2004) “A field study of the effect of interpersonal trust on virtual collaborative relationship performance” MIS quarterly vol. 28 No.2. P 183-227/ June 2004
Rice, R., and Shook, D. (1990) “Relationships of Job Categories and Organizational Levels to Use of Communication Channels, Including Electronic Mail: A Meta-Analysis and Extension,” Journal of Management Studies (27:2), 1990, pp.195-229.
Robbins, S.P, (1998). Organizational Behaviour, 11th edition, Prentice Hall publication.
Tuckman, Bruce. (1965). “Developmental sequence in small groups.”, Psychological bulletin, 63, 384-399
Warkentin, M. & Beranek, P.M. (1999). “Training to improve virtual team communication”, Information Systems Journal Vol. 9
Feel free to write your comments to info@moondusk.com |
Life is a journey!
|