The attitudes and opinions of virtual team members on the critical success factors associated with the virtual team setting and virtual team performance were explored in this mixed method study. A survey questionnaire was used to collect both qualitative and quantitative data on the perceptions of the individuals participating in the survey. The method of data collection included the distribution of a questionnaire consisting of both open and closed questions. The participants generally reported that virtual team environments are conducive to better performance. Emphasis on achievement, support for diversity, independence, and proactive information sharing were perceived as greater for virtual team environments, with team member dedication, team leader management skills, and technological support as potential mediators of this success. Some common advantages of the virtual team environment are the greater independence, ease of collaboration, ready access to experts who would otherwise be inaccessible, reduced stress, less distractions, and greater diversity of team members. While some participants believed that the conventional team setting is similar to the virtual team setting, many preferred the conventional setting because of its greater familiarity, less chance of miscommunication, more involvement, and lower technological maintenance costs. Further investigation is needed to see which types of work most readily benefit from the virtual team environment. Future research should focus on individual personality characteristics and demographics that are associated with virtual team success, productivity, and performance.


The focus of this dissertation was to identify the critical success factors of virtual teamwork performance. The decision to investigate virtual team performance and the factors that contribute to its success is supported by growing evidence that virtual teams have begun to surpass conventional teams in meeting the demands of organizations that are increasingly called on to apply and respond to new technologies that support, and in some cases, require a virtual teamwork approach (Gussow, 2002 Schweitzer, 2002 Webb, 2005).

A preponderance of the research demonstrated the unequivocal need for virtual teams as well as the challenges that virtual teams and virtual team managers are likely to face. The challenge of management today is in developing strategically flexible organizations in response to high technological pressures and increasingly competitive marketplaces. The emergence of a new generation of information and communication technologies lays the foundation for new organizational forms and structures such as virtual enterprises, virtual organizations, virtual corporations, virtual workforce, and virtual management (Yager, n.d.). Innovative organizational designs like these are proving to be extremely effective and popular in sustaining the increasing competitive, technological, and workforce demands of our century (DeCastro, 2001).

In the 2001 Business News article, Teamwork Goes Virtual, Alf Nucifora (2001) declared virtual work has arrived. Globalization and the easy availability of groupware (e-mail, tele-conferencing, threaded discussions, etc.), now make virtual teaming both desirable and inevitable (p. 9). Kerber and Buono (2004) submitted that, a steadily growing number of managers find themselves leading project teams with members located literally around the world (p. 4). In the face of rapidly emerging virtual work environments, new perspectives must be taken into account regarding the teamwork, collaboration, management, and communication strategies that are implemented for virtual teams (Cascio, 2000).

Furst, Reeves, Rosen, and Blackburn (2004) submitted that the demand for high quality, cost-effective and speedy solutions to challenging organizational problems has made the creation and deployment of virtual teams imperative to organizational success.  As described by Furst, Reeves, Rosen, and Blackburn (2004), Virtual project teams represent a growing response to the need for high-quality, low-cost, rapid solutions to complex organizational problems (p. 6). The purpose of this study was to evaluate a predefined list of factors that may be correlated with the performance of virtual teams. 

In Paul and McDaniels (2004) study of virtual teams, virtual collaborative relationships were examined for the discovery of how interpersonal trust impacts the relationships. Results of the study showed a positive relationship between calculative, competence, and relational interpersonal trust and performance (p. 183).  Paul and McDaniels (2004) demonstrated that there is an identifiable relationship between interpersonal trust among team members and their ability to perform optimally. Souren Paul, et al. (2005) established that a collaborative style of conflict management affects positive outcomes for group performance. According to Edwards and Sridhar (2005), Trust between peer teams significantly affect the performance, satisfaction and learning of the virtual team.

Other studies have established that the sense of team trust and pleasure that comes with the pride of workmanship, along with the satisfaction of knowing that a task was completed effectively, all work to impact team performance. 

In addition to conventional knowledge that leaders must possess, virtual team leaders also have to be technologically adept at following and understanding the range and scope of new technology that is constantly being introduced into the market. Leaders in the virtual team environment have to be willing to review and test new communication channels that can help streamline the communication process that the team uses.

Findings like these present important implications for the performance of virtual team members who are challenged by distance and lack of formal collaboration and bonding.  Even more, they present important implications for understanding what critical factors influence the successful performance of virtual teams.
Virtual teams face many unique challenges. It is imperative, therefore, that management understands what those challenges are, as well as what factors exist to address those challenges and improve performance. Among those challenges are the communication problems that come with geographic distance. Roebuck, Brock and Moodie (2004) submitted that communication is a challenge for virtual teams and their members because of their organizational and geographic dispersion and because they rely on technology for communication rather than the traditional face-to-face meeting (p. 359). Monalisa, Daim, Mirani, Dash, Khamis, and Bhusari (2008) contended that the distances and cultural differences that often mark virtual teams also present the risk of undermining trust, communication, accountability, organization, as well as productivity among virtual team members (p. 48). Challenges like these can present serious repercussions for the organization, as well as strong implications for identifying critical success factors of virtual team performance.

    In response to the increasing shift to virtual environments in many organizations, it would be valuable to explore some of the attitudes and opinions that virtual team members share regarding what contributes to the success of virtual team performance. The objective of this research was to investigate the critical success factors of virtual teams and determine their overall impact on virtual team performance. In organizations in which virtual teams are currently utilized, the final results of the data could be used to assess factors relevant to their own environments, with the expectation that such an assessment could influence improvements in the companys overall performance (Kiesler, 2001 Topi, 2004). The results of this research study could also be used as a basis for further research on the subject of virtual teams and the role that they play in the success of the organization. The ultimate goal of the research was to develop a set of recommendations for policy and training strategies that support improved virtual team performance.
   
Problem Statement
The structure, function, and effectiveness of conventional teams, team settings, and teamwork have occupied the literature for more than a decade
(Cook, 1997 Holland, Gaston,  Gomes, 2000 Snyder, 2009 Zhang, Hempel, Han,  Tjosvold, 2007) however, an identifiable shift in many organizations from conventional team framework to a virtual team framework merits an investigation of the virtual team setting. Just as important is an investigation of what appears to be a shift is a far more frequent decision to work in the virtual team environment rather than the conventional team setting. The exploration of such a phenomenon is made even more important in light of the identifiable changes in business processes as a result of technological changes that are consistently being made and introduced to organizations changes that can have significant influence on team development and teamwork in many organizations.

With the advent of the Internet, and the dramatic increase in its use over the past decade, drastic changes have come in how a variety of tasks are accomplished (Webb, 2005). The telephone and television have been instrumental in connecting users with the rest of the world, but the Internet has provided more flexibility and variety. While it is likely that computers will not entirely replace televisions, just as television sets have not completely replaced radios, both personal and business environments have been significantly changed by computers and the Internet (Garcia-Arca Prado-Prado, 2007 Ries,  Trout, 2001 Schutzman, 2008). For example, the ways in which individuals function within society have been changed by the integration of the Internet with popular technological tools, including television, cell phones, videogame consoles, and even automobiles. As a consequence, people are consistently required to adapt to the new technology-based environment that has been created (Gussow, 2002).

The growing use of virtual teams to capitalize on new technologies while responding to new demands, presents important implications for understanding what makes virtual teamwork a viable and effective option in changing organizational and business environments. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of research exploring the attitudes and opinions of virtual team members on the advantages of the virtual team environment and a consequent absence of factors associated with virtual team performance. The absence of empirically-derived factors that contribute to virtual team success translates to limited support for the development of management and team leader strategies that capitalize on the advantages of virtual teamwork and the virtual team environment.

Purpose
 The purpose of this research was to explore the attitudes and opinions of virtual team members and to identify what they perceive are the critical success factors associated with the virtual team setting and virtual team performance specifically. Emphasis was given to the exploration of such attitudes and opinions for factors that might explain the shift from the conventional team setting to the virtual team setting in contemporary organizations. A mixed methodology was used in the collection and analysis of the data.  The mixed method was supported by a survey consisting of both open and closed-ended questions. The study population consisted of individuals who have worked in both conventional and virtual team environments. The geographic location of the study was confined to the United States.

Theoretical Framework   
For this study, organizational context theory and the transactive memory systems (TMS) were the overarching theoretical rationales for virtual teams. The organizational context theory was relevant in terms of how shared meanings are formed in virtual teams TMS was relevant in terms of how virtual teams enhance performance. Both will be briefly discussed in the succeeding sections.

In organizational context theory, shared meaning in organizations are built through social relationships (Daft  Weick, 1984) the context is the social relationships that exist within that organization. Two assumptions in Daft and Weicks assertion were relevant in this study. The first assumption was that organizations are social systems that contain information from its structure. The second assumption was that organizations have specific systemic flow of information. Both of these assumptions were pertinent to this study because they provided explanations regarding the virtual structure that virtual teams are exposed to and how the virtual setting is a factor in how virtual teams share meanings.

Regarding virtual team performance, TMS provided a theoretical background regarding how virtual teams enhance team performance. According to Kanawattanachai and Yoo (2007), TMS is instrumental in the development of  division of labor in teams this division of labor influences team performance. Three behavioral abilities are associated with TMS recognizing, trusting, and coordinating. All these three behaviors are associated with positive team performance.

TMS was originally a concept in face-to-face interaction in typical non-virtual organization however, Kanawattanachai and Yoo (2007) found that TMS can also be applied to virtual settings. In TMS, team performance is influenced by the reliance of members in a team to each others expertise, especially to remember details about specific domains of expertise (p. 785). Despite the lack of face-to-face interaction in virtual teams, the interaction that occurs in virtual settings are adequate to enhance team performance, as TMS suggested.  
        ,
Research Questions
The following research questions were developed to guide the investigation with regard to exploring the literature, distributing the study instrument, organizing, exploring and analyzing the data and then finally identifying the critical factors of success in virtual team performance.

What are the perceived advantages, if any, of working in the virtual team environment
How does working in the virtual team environment compare with working in the conventional, non-virtual team setting

How conducive is the virtual team environment to virtual team performance
The purpose of this research study was to learn more about the attitudes and opinions of individuals in virtual teams which were expected to be met by the three primary research questions. 

Nature of the Study
Although the research design was dominated by the qualitative method, the quantitative element of the design also served to support the qualitative discoveries. One of the primary reasons that a mixed methodology was selected as opposed to a simple qualitative or more complex quantitative approach was that the questions prompted by the established research can be best answered by a dual approach to information gathering and data collection. That is, while a simple qualitative approach could work to draw out rich and subjective information from individuals working in virtual team environments, it would lack some of the rigor and integrity that quantitative data generally provide. 

A mixed-methodology is not without issues. For example, unlike the mono-method of singular quantitative research design, more than one source of data and approaches to analysis are used in mixed-method designs. Both qualitative and quantitative examination of data sources were used in this study. Although the application of a mixed-methodology could have contributed to challenges in complexity, it also contributed to the development of information that might have been left otherwise undiscovered (Tashakkori  Teddlie, 1998).
Qualitative and quantitative research methodologies are generally viewed as polar approaches to examining phenomenon. Bowling and Ebrahim (2005) submitted that the differences between qualitative and quantitative research are often viewed simply as words versus numbers, natural settings versus artificial settings, meanings versus behavior and idealism versus realism (p. 231).  Obvious differences like these are blamed by Bowling and Ebrahim (2005) for the consensus that qualitative and quantitative data and research methods cannot or should not be combined. The quantitative element of this study remained relatively simple, however, and was not analyzed for causal relationships or significant correlations. Rather, the quantitative data and its analyses was used to support what was assumed will be the more integral qualitative findings. 
There were some limitations to the research methodology for this study. First, organization was difficult in mixed-methodology designs. As a consequence, both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the study were straightforward but adequately focused to generate the kind of data that will make the results worthwhile in terms of meeting the purpose of the study  which was to identify the critical success factors of virtual team performance.

Another limitation that challenged the research was the size of the study sample that was examined for the mixed-method approach to the qualitative and quantitative phases of the research. Because the study was not empirical in design or nature, it had a strong dependence of the collection of qualitative data, which is best when it is collected through direct contact with study participants. In fact, Vinten (1994) established the importance of direct participation of researchers in the situation of interest (p. 30) when it comes to conducting a qualitative organizational investigation.  It was much more feasible, however, to distribute the survey questionnaire to a larger sample than it was to conduct personal interviews with a large sample of study participants. It was fair to suggest, however, that such a limitation was mitigated by the expectation that the rich and detailed information that was drawn through the open-ended questions contained in the study instrument was equal, as well as complementary, to the quantitative data derived from the close-ended questions.

The limitation or weakness of this study was that the data analyzed was more restricted than what was possible in other study types. A non-experimental study was useful for examining the perceptions of individuals closest to the experience and outcomes of virtual teamwork and who are best equipped to assist in the identification of critical success factors of virtual team performance. An issue that arose in the course of the study was corporate policies of confidentiality. Confidentiality was a consideration in Hertel et al.s (2004) study, as the authors stated, objective team effectiveness measures were not available due to the companies policies (p. 13). Every effort was made to avoid such a limitation through the careful planning and development of the survey questionnaire and the open-ended and close-ended questions that generated the data.

Significance of the Study
In recent years, the American business environment has manifested a proliferation of virtual teams, a phenomenon that can be attributed to strategic planning as well as economic necessity. Roebuck, Brock, and Moodie (2004) have cited the results of the research demonstrating that virtual teams have become an integral part of many organizations because of an increase in corporate restructuring, competition and globalization (p. 359). The goal of this research was to determine what factors contribute to the kind of successful virtual team environment that support improved performance in organizations. The factors were derived from a thorough review of existing literature, which was an important exploratory component of this study. The results of the literature review and survey questionnaire data were expected to answer the research questions that were developed. These research questions were designed to elicit important information on how working in the virtual team environment compares with the non-virtual team setting, the perceived advantages of working in the virtual team environment and finally what factors are considered critical to the success of virtual team performance.

The results of this research were expected to contribute to a more-focused learning and understanding of virtual teams. Although the research was not designed to make statistical comparisons between virtual teams and conventional teams and team setting, the results addressed several of the common conditions, components and outcomes that are associated with team-work in general, such as shared knowledge and collaborative learning (Kirschner  Van Bruggen, 2004). Nevertheless, it was anticipated that the results of the research will provide important data regarding best practices that have been identified for successfully creating and maintaining effective virtual teams specifically. For organizations in which the implementation of a virtual team or teams is being considered, management can benefit from the outcomes by identifying the specific performance factors that support and advance their efforts.

    This research study was intended to identify critical success factors that contribute to virtual team performance, as well as isolating other factors that may be considered less important. The research data can be used to support the proper allocation of time, funds and other resources to those factors that can be expected to achieve the highest level of results based on the exclusive needs of each organization.

Identifying and understanding critical success factors can play a major role in the development of training strategies that can support, as well as improve team-member roles and ultimately the outcomes of team projects, an assertion that can be applied to conventional as well as virtual team environments (Kalman, 2007). The ultimate goal of this research was to process and analyze the data on the perceptions, attitudes, and opinions and then develop a list of critical success factors of successful virtual team performance that support policy and training recommendations for virtual team leaders and team members.

Definitions
The following terms were identified as especially relevant to this research. A preliminary as well as comprehensive examination of the research and of the work by Goodbody (2005) in particular, suggested that terms like these are representative of the factors that are most likely to contribute to the success of virtual team performance. They were used in various phases of the research, including the review of the literature and the development of the survey questionnaire of open-ended and close-ended questions.
Communication. A variable measured by the effectiveness of communication links among virtual teams (Maznevski  Chudoba, 2000).
Team Dynamics. An environment reflected in the structure and conduct of the virtual team (Gratton  Erickson, 2007).
Technology. A variable measured by the level of information technology usage and resources available (Mowshowitz, 2002).
Virtual Team. A proximally distant group that relies on electronic means of communication to work together in completing various projects (Zacarro, Ardison,  Orvis, 2004).
Virtual Team Effectiveness. A variable measured by the quality of work produced (Maznevski  Chudoba, 2000).

Summary
An identifiable shift in many organizations from conventional teamwork to virtual teamwork merits an investigation of the virtual team setting and the characteristics that make it both unique and successful. The shift has been accompanied by the greater frequency of organizations to establish virtual team environments to replace conventional team settings, a trend that presents important implications for understanding what makes virtual teamwork a viable and effective option in changing organizational and business environments. There is, however, an identifiable lack of research exploring the attitudes and opinions of virtual team members on the advantages of the virtual team environment as well as on the critical factors of virtual team performance. It was anticipated that this study will identify the attitudes and opinions of individuals in virtual teams by resolving the three primary research questions that were developed to guide it. The research was expected to identify critical success factors that contribute to virtual team performance. The data can, in turn, be used to improve the allocation of resources to specific areas of the organization that support the virtual team and teamwork environment. In addition to the limited size of the study group that was sampled for the investigation, an especially challenging aspect of this study was the mixed-methodology. The mixed-method approach was deemed essential to identifying the critical factors of success in virtual team performance because it supported the collection of rich, detailed qualitative information and the collection of more objective and rigorous quantitative data necessary to identify the attitudes and opinions of the participants.



LITERATURE REVIEW
An exploration and analysis of the relevant literature was supported by an observation of the steps of an effective literature review, focusing primarily on the main research objectives and avoiding the propensity to diverge to more peripheral and often less relevant aspects of the research topic (Biggam, 2008, p. 51). A number of objectives that further illuminated the subject of virtual teams, and the critical factors that contribute to their successful performance was encountered in the review of the literature. Among the objectives was the imperative of identifying what was already known about the subject and how that knowledge was assessed, how the work and findings on the subject were similar or diverse as well as how this research can work to support what was already known as well as how it could shed new light on the subject (Silverman, 2005).
One of the primary goals of the literature review was to examine the most appropriate material relevant to the subject of virtual team performance and the critical success factors that support it. Because this research was primarily qualitative in nature, every effort was made to identify the most important ideas and concepts and demonstrate how they guided and enlightened the research. The focus of this literature reviews was on the established research and its organization in understanding the background of virtual teams and virtual team environments, the purpose and contribution of virtual teams, the current role and status of virtual teams in organizations and the imperative of future research.

Background of the Virtual Team Approach
The technological boom has made the virtual world and online businesses a vital part of the economy. The operations of many organizations now depend on Internet-enabled communication channels. Multi-national corporations, dot-com companies, and even small business entrepreneurs employ the brightest in their specialty using virtual teams (Wiesenfeld, Raghuram,  Garud, 2005). The phrase virtual team is slightly misleading an assertion supported by the fact that such teams are not actually virtual, but rather the way in which they perform specific tasks and work together is considered virtual (Gibson  Cohen, 2003). The virtual team is succinctly defined as a group of individuals who work across time and traditional boundaries on a temporary basis to bring different perspectives and skills to the team (Combs  Peacocke, 2007, p. 27). Their communication pathways and their ways of distributing the work that needs to be done are what make the teams a part of the virtual world. Virtual teams utilize various forms of technology to facilitate the completion of assigned tasks. Being virtual does not change what needs to be achieved, but rather how the core tasks will be accomplished (Parker, 2000).

The characteristic of virtual teams being geographically distributed makes communication patterns between virtual team members significantly more complex than in traditional corporations (Thompson, 2007). A multitude of theories exist on the advantages of having geographically distributed employees, such as increased flexibility, improved employee selection, less stressful work environment, etc. (Kiesler, 2001). A few negative implications associated with virtual teams are the lack of face-to-face interactions, nonverbal feedback, difficulties regarding sharing tasks and lack of trust (Warkentin, Lutfus  Hightower, 1997).

Components of a Virtual Team
The term virtual team has been loosely defined and used by researchers in several fields of study. This is misleading, particularly for researches that are concerned with creating the conditions for effectiveness for such teams  one of the objectives of the present research. Hence, in the context of the present study, a virtual team is defined as a collection of individuals that are interdependent and coordinates from various geographical places with the assistance of information communication technology (Walther  Bunz, 2005) In contrast with habitual groups, virtual teams are known to provide a more flexible way of operation, which makes the members responsive and divergent in their perceptions. Nevertheless, such teams also face complications arising from limited communication that might reduce their effective operations regardless of the possible outcomes. (Walther  Bunz, 2005)

Virtual teams are similar to traditional teams in that they involve a group of people working together towards a common goal. In addition to this, both the teams must have a certain level of trust between the team members towards completing the task assigned to them, in order to be successful. Also, both virtual and traditional teams need a manager or a leader to guide their processes. (Zemliansky, 2008, p. 15) Nevertheless, virtual teams and traditional teams are extremely different from each other in the way they operate. The operational difference between them is primarily due to the geographical distance between the team members. The research carried out by Ma, et al, (2006, p.2) confirms this distinction. The study indicated that the members of a traditional team usually hold face to face conversations, whereas the members of a virtual team communicate primarily through the use of technology, as the geographical distance between them does not permit face-to-face meetings. Examples of types of technology that are used by virtual teams for communication include the use of Internet, intranet, e-mails, real-time video conferences and teleconferences. (Baker, 2007, p. 2)
From the definition, the following can be derived as the two key components of a virtual team geographical dispersion and communication mode. Geographical dispersion of team members is identified in many books and research papers, as the most critical and important feature of virtual teams. According to Pauleen (2004), the notion of geographical dispersion has been integrated into the definitions of a virtual team. While it is true that virtual teams are made up of people potentially working all over the world, a collection of people (working on the same project) situated in the same facility can also be classified as a virtual team, if they chose to communicate predominantly through modern communication technologies instead of face-to-face meetings. Further, the notion of distance between the team members is not just limited to physical distance but also time. For instance, people could even share the same physical facilities but would be working at different times, creating the need to communicate primarily through modern technological means. Hence according to Pauleen (2004), though geographical dispersion is a key feature of a virtual team it is not a defining characteristic. Pauleen concludes that working predominantly through modern communication technologies represents the key factor that distinguishes virtual teams from traditional ones. (Pauleen, 2004, p. 4)
Communication among team members is one of the process predictors of team effectiveness. Effective communication is attributed to effective teams. It helps overcome process losses and strengthens process gains. Communication among members of a virtual team is more complex due to fact that it is mediated primarily by computers and involves cross-cultural communications. Therefore, effective communication is even more critical for success in the virtual setting. Bidgoli (2004, p. 603) opines that because virtual teams rely completely on mediated communication, it is critical to determine which technology is right for the team and the task at hand. He also adds that, virtual team needs to plan for the use of technology given the teams task, the skills and backgrounds of the virtual team members, and the sophistication of the organization. Research has shown that some electronic communication channels are more effective than others in building online relationships. For instance, e-mail has been found to be the basic channel for communication but is used primarily for information sharing and not for relationship building, which is usually supported by telephone exchange. On the other hand, internet chat is many times used to set up opportunities for informal and spontaneous communication between team members of a virtual team. However, regardless of the technology used, communication must flow freely and frequently, with everything completely understood by all virtual team members. (Ferris  Godar, 2006, p. 95)

According to Bidgoli (2004), virtual teams have four different options in which to work collaboratively same time same place, same time different place, different time same place, and different time different place. The team members can be in the same geographic locale at the same time, or they can be in different locations at the same time. This type of communication is called synchronous communication and includes Internet technologies as phone calls, instant messaging, video conferences, and chats. If virtual team members are communicating in an asynchronous manner, they are separated by both time and distance. They can be in different geographical locations at different time, or the virtual team members can be colocated in the same place but at different times. Examples of asynchronous Internet technologies include e-mail, voice mail, websites, databases, and bulletin boards. Internet-based groupware can be both synchronous and asynchronous depending on how the virtual team uses the technology. Virtual teams also need a backup plan in case one of the primarily technologies becomes inoperable. In addition, access to technical support is important. The most important aspect, however, is that technology must match the goals of a virtual team and facilitate what the team is trying to accomplish. (Bidgoli, 2004, p. 603-605 Rutkowski et. al. 2008, p. 304)

Types of Virtual Teams
There are many different configurations of virtual teams. It is important that both team leaders as well as team members understand the type of virtual team they work on and the special challenges each type presents, in order to operate effectively. Depending on the nature of the work that a team comes together to do and the types of organizations they need to work for, virtual teams fall into seven basic types
Networked teams Such teams consist of individuals who collaborate to achieve a common goal or purpose membership is frequently diffuse and fluid. Teams of this type frequently cross time, distance, and organizational boundaries. Examples of this type of virtual team are often found in consulting firms and in high-technology organizations. In addition, organizations that develop technological products and many research and development organizations can also use networked virtual teams. (Duarte  Snyder, 2006, p. 5 Coleman  Levine, 2008, p. 131)

Parallel teams Such teams work over a short term to develop recommendations for an improvement in a process or system. They have a distinct membership and carry out special assignments or functions that the regular organization does not want to, or is not equipped to perform, or when expertise does not reside in one locationorganization. Such teams frequently cross, time, distance and organizational boundaries. Virtual parallel teams are becoming a fairly common way for multinational and global organizations to make recommendations about worldwide processes and systems that take a global perspective. (Duarte  Snyder, 2006, p. 6 Coleman  Levine, 2008, p. 131)

Project or product development teams Such teams conduct projects for users or customers for a defined period. Tasks are usually non-routine, and the results are specific and measurable. Such teams too can cross time, distance, and organizational boundaries. Unlike parallel teams, project teams usually exist for a longer period of time and have decision-making authority. Project teams are similar to networked teams in that the team members may move on and off the project as their expertise is needed however the membership is more delineated from the rest of the organization and a final product is clearly defined. Here, team members conduct projects for users or customers for system or organizational process. (Duarte  Snyder, 2006, p. 6 Coleman  Levine, 2008, p. 132)

Work, functional, or production teams Such teams perform regular and ongoing work usually in one function such as accounting, finance, training, or research and development. Teams of this type have clearly defined membership and can be clearly distinguished from other parts of the organization. Studies have shown that the number of such groups is on a rise among production companies. Many organizations now have business centres operating globally around the clock, and work teams that service customers may exist in most time zones across the world. (Duarte  Snyder, 2006, p. 6-7 Coleman  Levine, 2008, p. 132)

Service teams Such teams support customers or the internal organization in a servicetechnical support role around the clock and are distributed across distance and time. Network and technical support are usually continuous operations, with technicians and call centre personnel located around the world taking turns dealing with network problems and upgrades (Duarte  Snyder, 2006, p. 7 Coleman  Levine, 2008, p. 132)
Management teams Such teams work collaboratively on a daily basis within a functional division of a corporation and can be separated in distance and time. Present day management teams are usually dispersed across a country or around the world but work collaboratively on a daily basis. The collaboration is usually carried out by means or audio- or video-conferences focused on the achievement of corporate goals or objectives. Staff members usually communicate with the management via e-mail to discuss important issues as they arise (Duarte  Snyder, 2006, p. 7 Coleman  Levine, 2008, p. 132)

Action teams Such teams offer immediate responses and are typically activated in emergency conditions, and often cross distance and organizational boundaries. A good example of an action team is a weather team at a television station that might have action team members distributed in a field to collect real-time data during a weather emergency. (Duarte  Snyder, 2006, p. 7 Coleman  Levine, 2008, p. 132)

Concept of virtual distance
The notion of distance has usually been one of the primary focuses of virtual team studies, and most of the related literature review has usually concentrated on geographic and temporal factors. However, distance in virtual team is not merely limited to these two factors, but comprises of a combination of physical separation, technology mediation, and disconnected relationships. In addition to geographic and temporal factors, some other factors affecting distance in virtual teams are cultural distance (a function of differences in values and communication styles that are rooted in culture), social distance (based on perceptions of class of status differences that produce feelings of social closeness or distance based on social interactions), face-to-face interactions, infrastructure, isolation, identification, relationship-history-based distance (includes both the extent to which members have had prior relationships with one another i.e. strong ties or relationships with some of the same people i.e. weak ties), relational distance (based on the difference between team members organizational affiliations), team size, multitasking, level of technical skills, and interdependence distance (the degree to which one individual or group perceives their success to be tied to another individual or group). Even if these factors are only minimally present, their combined effect can have a significant impact on team performance (Lojeski  Reilly, published in Kock 2007, p. 661-662, 665-666). These dynamics lead to a psychological separation that builds over time.
Research has shown that perceived distance between two or more individuals has negative effects on communication and persuasion and promotes a tendency to deceive more than those who do not perceive themselves to be distant. Any leadermanager trying to improve the performance of his team and advance competitive advantage must be cognizant of the concept of dispersion in virtual teams and the causes behind it. (Lojeski  Reilly, 2009, p. 12)

Karen Sobel Lojeski and Richard Reilly (2006) developed and validated the construct Virtual Distance, in order to measure and conceptualize dispersion. This construct was applied to 115 collaborative teams drawn from financial and pharmaceutical companies. The researchers found that virtual distance influences trust, goal clarity and organizational citizenship and indirectly has an influence on innovativeness and project success. In other words, teams spread over more time zones and geographical locations, and teams with members from different organizations and nationsculture tend to have more problems and hence have special needs in terms of leadership and management in order to be effective. (Seifert  Weinhardt, 2006, p. 285) Further, collaboration technologies that are meant to help people feel closer to colleagues and peers are of no use when virtual distance is high. Virtual distance not only prevents that from happening but also can exacerbate real and perceived differences between individuals, groups, and organizations. The problem can be reduced only by reducing virtual distance, which in turn increases trust that is extremely necessary for the effective operation of a team. (Lojeski and Reilly, 2009, p. 20)

After the initial study, Lojeski and Reilly (2009) further made a detailed study of 500 project teams from around the world. The surveys primary aim was to measure the virtual distance index among the teams. The virtual distance index is an operational measure of virtual distance  a standardized, equally weighted average of the virtual distance factors in the corresponding model. The model, which is known as the virtual distance model, incorporates a set of eleven physical, social, and work-related factors that create a sense of perceived distance in individuals, teams, and organizations collaborating in virtual space. Virtual distance is created as distance within each of the eleven factors in the model becomes greater. (Kock, 2007, p. 666)
The data from the research further cemented the theory that virtual distance has significant impact on performance and competitive outcomes. The study also showed that virtual distance is not only measurable but can also be predicated. Hence, it can be avoided with careful analysis, planning or intervention. A point of interest was that virtual distance was found to be just as prevalent among co-located team members as among geographically dispersed groups showing that the virtual distance risk cannot be reduced by merely co-locating the people of a project at one place. Because of all these issues, the researchers deduced that when virtual distance is high, the leader performance also suffers significantly more than when the virtual distance is low. (Lojeski and Reilly, 2009, p. 12-13)

Characteristics of a Virtual Team
Extensive study and analysis of the characteristics and features of virtual teams was done by Dr. David Gould, one of the early researchers in this field. He found that virtual teams usually take the same basic structure as traditional teams. His research further revealed that few virtual teams are 100 percent virtual  virtual teams tend to have face-to-face meetings. (Gould, 1997 published in Zhao, 2008) According to Gould (1997 published in Zhao, 2008), virtual teams are like traditional teams with three added components
The team members are not colocated (i.e. different geography)
The team members are from different organizations or parts of the organization
The team members work together for different lengths of time
Despite these differences, research has shown that virtual teams achieve the goals set for them because people can be trusted to work well even without the physical presence of the team leader manager. Based on his studies, Gould offered an easily understandable alternative to define virtual teams  a mathematical equation
 EMBED Equation.3   (Gould, 2006)

From the above equation, it can be seen that the three components forming a virtual team are the team members communication technologies used by the members for communicating with each other and a Groupware, which is basically a software platform that allows people to work on a project from different places andor times, white still tracking and integrating the project. (Gould, 2006 Zhao, 2008) Though the initial research by Gould was done in the late 1990s, his research has gained significance because subsequent researches have proved his theories by adding further data-based proof.

One of the virtual team characteristics mentioned above is trust, which is crucial for the success of a team. Due to the lack of physical presence of team members or the manager, trust becomes far more pivotal in the virtual team than its traditional counterpart  i.e. another key components of a virtual team. Trust is necessary in preventing the geographical distances of team members from becoming psychological distances. (Bradley  Beyerlein, 2008, p. 155) Since vast majority of virtual teams communicate using information technology and asynchronously, they lack face time to build a rapport that is taken for granted as an ingredient for success of traditional teams. Hence, developing technologies and methods to facilitate trust between members of a virtual team as well as the required collaboration skills, is probably one of the most important task facing both researchers and managers. However, while Information technology has broadened the scope of connectedness in terms of geography, technology on its own is not enough. (Mitchell  Zigurs, 2009, p. 61)

According to studies, trust in virtual teams can be of different types including familiarity-reliance-based trust, confidence-based trust, dependence-based trust, and situational trust. In order to achieve positive collaborations, all manners of trust are essential between the team members. (Moore, 2007, p. 572) However, nurturing trust amongst virtual team members is a daunting task that needs to be carefully managed. The complication arises because virtual teams differ in many ways, including their interaction modes, the history, the future, and permanency of the team. The task becomes even more challenging on account of the membership of the team i.e. differences in organizations, culture, and nationalities. All these issues affect the trust between the members of a virtual team. Hence, in addition to technological barriers, complex social, economic, managerial and psychological barriers have to be overcome, in order to promote trust between the members of a virtual team. (Li, 2007, p. 191)

One of the main factors affecting trust within a virtual team is culture. Indeed, managing and influencing culture lies at the heart of leading an effective virtual team. Researchers have described culture as a concept that is complex, multileveled and deeply rooted, and must be analyzed and observed at its every level before it can be fully understood or successfully changed and managed. Bernard (2008) considers culture as an important aspect in understanding virtual teams primarily because a cultural approach focuses on largely ignored but pertinent issues such as assumptions and brings underlying values and motives to the surface. He further adds that it is important understand that culture cannot be treated as a mere variable affecting the virtual team, but as a pervasive concept that is indistinguishable from the team (p. 64).

Culture is one of the virtual teams most significant boundary. Pauleen (2004, p. 15) considers cultural heterogeneity to be an asset that brings different perspectives to a team. However, he also agrees that cultural heterogeneity means greater complexity. People tend to interpret information based on their cultural filters, leading to a potentially broad range of misinterpretations or distortions. When facing such cultural disparity, it may be more difficult to establish trust, delaying the time a team requires to become effective. According to Pauleen, when unfamiliar professional cultures are united in a team, the members may lack the shared meaning, language, pattern, and routine needed to agree on a shared purpose, goals and priorities. They may even have problems dividing tasks, coordinating work, handling conflict, and formulating rules. In a virtual world, it would be even more difficult to negotiate and assemble the different visions of the team members into a coherent and workable scheme, which will value diversity, teamwork, open communication, and learning. (Pauleen, 2004, p. 14-15)

In the context of virtual teams, culture has two distinct aspects corporate and team culture and national culture and diversity.

Corporate and team Culture According to Dreo et. al. (2003), the importance of the culture that exists within an organization is more than the influence of industry gender or age. The organizational culture invariably permeates the virtual team however, being invisible from the inside, its influences are harder to see and understand. Pauleen (2004) points out that, employees of an organization develop their own knowledge bases, language, specialized vocabulary, technical routines, workplace values and norms, and sometimes even dress code. A conflict may arise when employees working at different geographical locations or organizations come together to work on a project (p. 15). Further, virtual teams are not mere electronic representations they are made up of people who exist in the real world. Hence, the characteristics of virtuality need to be deliberately built into their culture. This includes imbibing mechanisms of dispersal, empowerment, restlessness, independence, technology, shared purpose and trust  without which a virtual team cannot be expected to thrive. The task becomes especially challenging for the manager of a virtual team since some members of the team may not even be the employees of the company, and demands a strong mix of ingenuity and persistence on behalf of the manager. (Dreo et. al. 2003, p. 77-78, Bernard, 2008, p. 68)

National Culture According to Dreo et. al (2003), dealing with different national culture issues can be even more complex than organizational culture and can result in confusion and misunderstanding. National culture indicates an individuals orientation towards hierarchy, time, individualism etc. With the escalation of the globalization, more and more virtual teams are becoming multinational. According to Duarte  Snyder (2006), even in domestic teams, cultural differences may influence the team members way of working. For instance, in United States, there are many different cultural groups that could be represented on a team. It is possible that a domestic virtual team could have as much diversity as an international team or even more (p. 57). According to Kalbfleisch (2005, p. 200), individuals raised in low context cultures experience more satisfaction and productivity in virtual teams than those raised on high context culture. This is because, the former depend more on precise language while the latter on non-verbal and contextual cues that would be unavailable to them in a virtual environment. However, regardless of national cultural, virtual teams can function well if they are supported by the organizational culture.

Several authors have attempted to identify a range of key success factors for a virtual team. For instance Duarte and Snyder (2003) identified seven critical success factors that were found to be directly related to virtual team performance human resources policies, on-the-job education and development, standardization of organizational and team processes, use of collaborative and communication technologies, organizational culture, leadership support, and competences of the team leader and members. Bissoonauth (2002) found that the critical virtual team success factors are team members commitment, perceived organizational support, management support, technological support, and perceived benefits. Bourgault and Drouin (2007) conducted a survey of 150 professionals involved in virtual project teams and identified a list of 10 conditions that promote virtual team performance good communication processes, availability of adequate technological tools and the training to use them, trust throughout the project lifecycle, standardized team practices, a common vision and goals, strong and shared leadership, team competence, formal decision-making process, shared information and know-how, and support from upper management at all locations. (Sherif, 2009, p. 613)
It can be seen from above that the factors considered for success of a virtual team are disparate and that there is no single way to understand and manage virtual teams. However, these factors can be grouped into two of management areas management of things issues and management of people issues. Some researchers also call these two groups as structural factors and team processes. Things issues include time management, cost management, scope management, risk management, change management, and integration. People issues include communication, collaboration and conflict management. People issues affect things issues in indirect and profound ways but are more difficult to measure and are more subjective, even though they represent a significant weight in the overall success of the virtual team. In order to reconcile the things issues and people issues, the virtual team requires a strong leader. Team leaders influence all the factors required by a virtual team for its success. Regardless of the model of the success factors chosen, team leaders affect each and every area of a virtual teams work. (Duarte  Snyder, 2006, p. 10) Hence, this critical component of success of a virtual team has been discussed separately in the next sub-section.

Virtual Team Leadership
According to Dyer et al. (2007) regardless of its importance, virtual team leadership remains one of the little understood and often poorly supported elements in the success of virtual teams. The demands of managing a virtual team exceeds the demands of traditional teams, hence the role of a team leader is crucial and much more challenging than the team leader role in traditional teams. The membership of a virtual team varies according to the type of the team (discussed earlier), and may either be permanent or temporary. However, the team leadership is often full time, even though the team membership may be part-time. Dyer et al. (2007) give two primary reasons why team leaders must spend significantly more time managing virtual teams. First, the team leader has to organize all the team meetings and team activities electronically, which is time consuming as the communications need to be clearly spelled out often through written communication and formal acknowledgement is needed. Second, in order to be effective, team leaders of virtual teams have frequent phone IM conversations with the individual team members to understand their questions and suggestions for more efficient team functioning. This is needed in order to give the team leader an opportunity to keep his or her finger on the pulse of the team. Finally, effective virtual team leaders need to devote extra time to monitor the morale of the team members as well as alleviate any concerns they have with other team members or team leaders. Dyer et al. (2007) even suggest a rule of thumb for the team leaders time allocation the team leader should allocate 50 percent more time to the project than he or she would be spending managing a co-located team working on a similar problem (p. 193).

Leadership has been the topic of extensive research in the general management literature. According to Ryan  Reilly (2007), the single most influential leadership theory in current academic research is the transformational leadership. This theory, combined with that of transactional leadership and laissez-faire has been called the Full-range Leadership theory or FLRT, in recognition of its broad acceptance and support based on empirical findings. The popularity of this theory has far exceeded any of the other theories that have been introduced later. However, Ryan  Reilly (2007) also note the limitations of the FLRT theory and cite the criticisms put forward by Yukl (2001) in this context. They point out that, according to Yukl, the theory does not include behaviours that involve leader interaction with superiors, peers, and outsiders whose information, cooperation and political support are essential for a teams performance. In particular, the behavioural mechanisms of leaders while networking, acting as spokesperson for the team, negotiating agreements, persuading people to provide political support and necessary resources, resolving problems and conflicts with outsiders  have not been studied sufficiently. In addition to this, organic structure and situations where boundary-spanning units supersede the technical core have also not been understood sufficiently in the leadership context. Ryan  Reilly (2007) add that this is extremely pertinent for virtual teams as many such teams, especially the globally distributed virtual teams, have precisely these characteristics i.e. networked structures, boundary-spanning with respect to functionality and location. Hence, according to them, virtual teams, especially those that are also geographically distributed and culturally diverse, require a rethinking of traditional leadership models. (Ryan  Reilly, 2007, p. 172-173)

Riggio  Orr (2004) analyze the leadership in virtual teams, in their paper, which starts by questioning the suitability of the traditional model of top-down leadership for virtual teams. Heckman et. al. (2007), agree pointing out that the basic assumptions about the nature of leaders in traditional theories of leadership is not suitable when the virtual team leadership is being discussed. This is because virtual teams are often characterized by fluid team membership, reliance on asynchronous communication, lack of formal cues and face-to-face communication, and minimized organizational context. In these circumstances, the leadership is no longer static but becomes emergent. This means that virtual teams tend to evolve a leadership structure that is situational. In some teams, a single member emerges and is recognized by other members as the team leader, while in other teams a less-centralized leadership structure based on interaction and influence patters may emerge. Thus in technology-mediated teams, it is possible that the leadership is shared by several team members, with each providing leadership for different aspects of the teams work. Such a situation poses problems for most traditional conceptions of leadership, as the members might feel that the team does not have any leaders. Heckman et. al. (2007) argue that leadership is indeed at work in these situations but must be looked differently than as presented by most current theories of leadership. (Riggio  Orr, 2004, p. 181 Heckman et. al., 2007, p. 153)

Heckman et. al. (2007), analyze the phenomenon of leaderless teams by studying the leadership practices in self-managing teams and the concept of shared leadership. Their study shows that the perspective of shared leadership is similar to distributed leadership, which conceptualizes leadership in terms of relational processes and interdependencies among social networks or networks of influence. The term shared-leadership suggests that it is unlikely that a single multi-role leader will emerge. Many other studies of virtual teams have also found shared leadership to be a better predictor of potency than measures of vertical leadership. According to Bidgoli (2004), because of the diversity of technical and management expertise needed for virtual teams to be successful, shared leadership is often the norm rather than the exception. He suggests that there may be a rotation of the overall leadership role in a virtual team, with most members of the virtual team taking a leadership role at some point in the process. This is even more of a possibility for virtual teams that deal with complex issues and problems, where shared leadership would be present regardless of the titles used. In such case, the team members might establish a division of leadership where each member of the virtual team, with a unique set of skills, contributes to the successful completion of the task at hand. (Bidgoli, 2004, p. 602)

While there have been many studies showing that shared leadership exists in many virtual teams, very few studies have examined how the leadership is shared on virtual teams, given that they are widely dispersed in time and geography. A key challenge is to determine how necessary leadership functions such as coaching, mentoring, team development and envisioning can be accomplished in a shared leadership model. According to Halverson  Timrizi (2008), the separation in time and space, which is a basic characteristic of virtual teams, presents many challenges to shared leadership in the virtual teams. This is because, due to the lack of face-to-face interactions, the virtual teams have fewer opportunities to recognize problems and anticipate them, which makes misunderstandings more likely to occur. Hence, leaders face challenge while trying to foster cohesion and trust and would need to develop special skills for leading in cyberspace (p. 163-164).

Finally, the implementation of shared leadership in virtual teams is also a key area. Yoong (2009) points out that for untrained leaders, the idea of migrating to a shared leadership environment is difficult to contemplate. While it is true that the concept of sharing leadership role among team members appears by its very nature to be ideally suited to the geographically distributed model of a virtual team, implementing such a team presents various problems. Yoong adds that the creation of a virtual team that integrates shared leadership at its core should happen at the team inception and the role of the vertical leader should not be discounted since that role is essential to empower the rest of the team in its endeavours. Hence, the idea put forward by Yoong is to combine vertical and shared leadership for virtual teams. (Yoong, 2009, p. 20-23)
According to Scullion and Collings (2006), virtual teams are usually managed more effectively by empowerment and delegating managerial functions to the team members. The processes in a virtual team must also be carefully managed and coordinated. This involves clearly defining roles, a clear task strategy, and agreed operating norms. Unlike face-to-face teams, where there processes can be implicitly negotiated by team members, virtual teams which do not manage these processes carefully are likely to fail. Based on these requirements, (p. 169) Maznevski et. al (2005) point out that the virtual team leader must perform two additional roles  providing continuous feedback to team members, and facilitating relationships between the team and external stakeholders. Further, developing and articulating a clear vision of the goals of the team is also a key aspect of virtual team leadership. However, Maznevski et. al (2005) also recognize that every virtual team is different and that there is no simple best practice prescription for resolving difficulties. Some key issues that a virtual team has to contend with are the capability of team members to identify themselves with their corresponding organizations while working with people from other organizations as a team the interpersonal skills required by the team members given that the nature of interpersonal interaction is inherently unpredictable and the technology gap between the developed and developing nations in a globalized world. (p. 379)

Knowledge Management in Virtual Teams
    Virtual teams, by their nature, connect islands of knowledge that may be distributed globally. The people participating in the team are chosen for their expertise. As a result, the team will generate a lot of new knowledge that should be ideally shared with the whole company. Research has shown that virtual teams assist the top management in knowledge management along the value chains, which improves their overall performance in a volatile market. The senior management is tasked with aligning the organizations objectives with the competitive strategies along the incorporation of advanced technologies. An organizations efficiency and effectiveness in their operations depends on the incorporation of virtual information and communication technology in the daily activities of the company. (Edwards and Wilson, 2004)

According to Edwards and Wilson (2004), sharing information within a virtual team environment is a sufficient challenge in itself. They agree that supporting the spread of knowledge would be much more difficult. The responsibility of knowledge sharing and ensuring an open channel between the team and the rest of the organization and supply chain is the responsibility of the team leader. It is imperative that information flows in both directions to ensure that the virtual team continues to feel involved with the activities and products of colleagues with whom they may no longer have regular contact (p. 78-79).

    To an extent, the use of electronic communication tools has succeeding in storing and then reusing the knowledge that virtual teams are generating. The process is however not just limited to technology, but also extends to the process by which the knowledge is shared. Needless to say, the most challenging aspect is the identification and capture of tacit knowledge that the employees have developed from their experience. Despite numerous technologies being developed and researches conducted in this area, a good solution to the knowledge management process of capturing, organizing and storing, sharing and leveraging information and learning is yet to be found. (Edwards  Wilson, 2004, p. 79)

    According to Latras and de Pablos (2009), merely possessing technological infrastructure is not enough for knowledge management. Their research showed that more virtual teams seem to be using technology to do their work as a matter of course, passively collecting knowledge and sidestepping many of the motivational problems of knowledge management found in more traditional settings. Latras and de Pablos (2009), also note that there may be negative effects related to virtual teams and knowledge. According to them, if the perspective is that of increasing value to the organization, the use of more virtual teams provide an opportunity for knowledge capture to occur at a low marginal cost. However, the individuals who hold this knowledge to be captured may experience a considerable loss, even as the organization gains.

    A different view point is held by Torlina (2004), according to who both business and society gain from virtual group knowledge work, in related though different ways. Existence of virtual teams, enables a business to utilize the knowledge of employees from both local and international despite their location. Businesses benefit through the establishment of internal knowledge flow links and the sharing and creation of knowledge leading to organizational learning and innovation. Because of shared information virtual teams have common understanding on aspects concerning the development of the organization. This understanding then brings up loyal and faithful customers. The integration of knowledge between virtual teams also assists in full utilization of individuals potential and expertise in the delivery of innovative ideas to their customers Society benefits through establishment of knowledge networks based on shared interests and objectives validation of knowledge created elsewhere and the provision of a fertile environment for knowledge stimulation and innovation. There are several factors that influence the process of information sharing among virtual teams. These factors emerge from three different angles corporate, organizational and technical. For proper implementation of an information sharing system, these type types of factors play a major role. In addition to these, training, communication and trust also have a crucial role in knowledge sharing within global virtual teams. (Torlina, 2004, p. 101) However, it is true that although many studies have been conducted regarding knowledge management in global virtual teams, there has been inadequate information on how exactly virtual teams facilitate cross-border communication transfer.

Advantages and limitations of virtual teams
    Before embarking upon a study of success factors affecting virtual teams, it is important to understand why modern organizations are increasingly relying on virtual team arrangements as it cannot be denied that virtuality adds complexity to the team. According to Buhlmann (2006), Virtual teams have three-fold impact on the working on modern organizations personal, organizational and societal. (p. 19). Hence, the advantages and limitations of a virtual team will be viewed from these perspectives.

Personal impact Virtual team members by virtue of having higher work flexibility, higher responsibilities, possibilities of experiences about new cultures, and perks like travel to new places, tend to experience a higher personal job satisfaction. Also, the worklife balance for team members increases, due to elimination of fixed office hours, and at time even the need to travel to work. (Schwalbe, 2009, p. 67) However, with less face-to-face interaction with team members, feelings of isolation and detachment might creep up depending on the degree of virtuality. Also, many elements of effective communication are not present, for instance verbal and nonverbal cues. This might lead to a decrease in trust, fostering misunderstandings and resulting in numerous conflict escalations. Further, the work is complicated due to new communication technologies that the members are expected to be comfortable enough to use without supervision. In addition, virtual team members are expected to deal with more stakeholders because of the geographical dispersion of the team. (Buhlmann, 2006, p. 19, 21 Buono, 2004, p. 144)

Organizational impact  The primary advantage of virtual teams from an organizational concept is cost and time saving. In addition, virtual teams significantly increase knowledge sharing and bring talents from around the globe together. The problem of attrition can also be controlled by taking care of the problems due to employee relocation, which again prevents vital knowledge from being lost. Virtual teams can also enhance the available pool of resources by including people from outside the sponsoring organizations, such as consultants, supply chain affiliates or members of partner organizations. In addition, best practices from all over the world can be shared, which reduces the number of errors by using other team members prior experiences. A major problem with the virtual teams is that all team members may not be located close to their clients making it difficult to achieve clarity about the needs, expectations and priorities of key customers. From a managerial point of view, virtual teams increase the complexity of team management due to lack of control caused by geographical dispersion of team members, as the manager cannot see all members of the team most of the times. Conflict management is also difficult due to the differences in culture such as punctuality, working speed, quality perception or priority setting. Yet another managerial challenge is building and maintaining trust and relationships from a distance. (Schwalbe, 2009, p. 67 Buhlmann, 2006, p. 20, 22 Buono, 2004, p. 144)
Societal impact Virtual teams offer new opportunities for people with low mobility, family care duties, or even disabilities. Where companies offer the possibility of working from home, the work productivity of external sales representatives can raise considerably because of reduction in time loss due to commuting. Some side-advantages of virtual teams include health benefits because of less stress, and reduction in environmental pollution due low lesser paper work and commuting traffic. However, increased dependence on technology and working in isolation leads to an overall societal degradation. (Schwalbe, 2009, p. 67 Buhlmann, 2006, p. 20)

According to Buhlmann (2006), one way to counter many of the limitations of virtual teams is comprehensively training the team members and team leaders. While in short-term, training adds to cost and temporarily reduces employees productivity (as during training employees cannot do their regular work), in the long-term organizations benefit due to these investments (p. 22). Schwalbe (2009) also considers training to be a key to performance of virtual teams, as the team members need to know how to use specific technologies that support team activities. The topic of training and its impact on the performance of virtual teams is discussed in detail in the next section (p. 145).

Purpose and Contribution of Virtual Teams
Members of virtual teams are rarely in physical proximity with each other, which means that the bonding and familiarity that comes with working together in conventional environments is absent. Virtual teams are also known to be very task-focused. It was revealed that that the members of virtual teams communicate differently than the members of work teams that interact face-to-face. In the case of virtual teams, therefore, the results and outcomes of individual performance are especially important in establishing the value of the team member. Managing and training members of the virtual team is also important. Despite the lack of proximity, many concepts and tools used by teams in the conventional team environment can be applied to virtual teams. Virtual teams, however, also need more support and guidance than conventional teams. For example, technology plays a very critical role in the stability and success of the virtual team. Team members have to understand and embrace the constant learning and training that is required to keep up with new technology. 

Team leaders should establish and maintain a comfortable environment within which all the team members can operate. A level of trust and respect will help get the best output from all team members. The key stages of team activity also changes as the team moves through various projects and periods in the teams existence.

 Team members in virtual teams have to be able to move more seamlessly from one stage to another.
People are brought together to work in the same location because management assumes that the support that employees give to each other improves their joint performance. The assumption is that co-location enables unplanned informal meetings, quick answers to unanticipated questions, idea generation, and problem solving sessions.

Evaluating and identifying factors that can foster similar interaction in virtual teams is required. Comprehending early the needs of the team and the challenges that they face will better prepare the virtual team when they face the challenges in reality. For example, the need for training and education to handle the changing technology that is constantly introduced in virtual team environments cannot be stressed enough. Identifying the proper methods and the frequency of training that is offered can also help reduce some of the challenges that are faced by the use of technology in the virtual environment.

Training can only be effective when management knows what factors need to be developed to support greater team performance. This is true for conventional non-virtual teams but has even greater application to the development of virtual teams. A review of the literature revealed that the identification of critical success factors to support strategies such as virtual team training and development has garnered some attention in the research. A primary example is the work by Goodbody (2005), which addresses the critical factors of global virtual teams, with an emphasis on identifying ways by which the common obstacles to team performance could be mitigated or eliminated altogether.

According to Goodbody (2005), the purpose and contribution of virtual teams depends on numerous factors, including but not necessarily confined to factors involved in team formation, trust and collaboration as well as team communication (p. 18).  Goodbodys (2005) investigation plays an important role in the development of the present research in providing a framework on which to canvass virtual team members on their perceptions of virtual team work and ultimately, on what they believe are the critical success factors of virtual team performance.

Current Role, Status and Needs of Virtual Teams
The role of virtual teams is not confined to a single industry or group of industries. On the contrary, the application of the virtual team approach spans almost every large organization and every industry where the communication and information technologies that support it are available. This assertion is supported by the versatility and applicability of virtual team strategies across industries. A primary example is the model of strategies designed to optimize performance developed for virtual teams operating in the healthcare environment. Among the strategies is the directive of making the whole visible to everyone, which addresses the fact that virtual teams are distributed teams, which can not only undermine the sense of being whole but can fairly prevent team members from seeing the team and their respective task(s) as a whole (Kimball  Eunice, 1999, p. 59).

Challenges like these are not unique, nor are the strategies designed to address them only applicable to the healthcare environment. Among them are the directives of (a) distributing maps that show where each team member is located, (b) creating and sharing images that show the name of each team member sitting at a place around a table, (c) publishing and distributing an actual team picture to all members for display (Kimball  Eunice, 1999, p. 6).  While the strategies and the issues they address might seem trite to some, the research suggests that they can go a long way in supporting the virtual and distributed team.
An increasingly diverse workforce presents major implications for the development and performance of virtual teams. At the same time, cultural and regional influences play a major role in the behavior and operations of the team.

 Cultural values are important for any society and are portrayed in the morals, laws, customs, and practices of that society. Individualism (self-interest) and collectivism (group interest) behavior can also impact the effectiveness of virtual and global teams that organizations create in any country.
Cultural differences in the form of diverse ideas, values and attributes, when properly channeled, can help the teams achieve tremendous results.

 Identifying and hiring the right person is very important when working in cross-cultural teams in a virtual environment. In addition, virtual teams should be able to map, bridge, and integrate their differences to obtain the final results. This assertion is supported by Kerber and Buono (2004) who submitted Virtual teams allow organizations to bring together critical contributors who might not otherwise be able to work together due to time, travel, and cost restrictions.

In addition, an increasing trend to integrate the supply and value chain in industries is encouraging collaborative efforts from the organizations all along the supply chain. The practice of setting up virtual teams across organizations and along the supply chain is another increasing trend. Supply chains can span countries or continents and collaborative efforts can help companies gain a competitive edge. Developing a symbiotic and collaborative effort across the supply chains can help companies obtain true results from the virtual teams that are created. The proposed study will serve to identify the values that affect virtual teams.
Researchers have already identified some of those values, not the least of which is trust. According to Edwards and Sridhar (2005) Trust between peer teams significantly affect the performance, satisfaction and learning of the virtual team.

 Other studies have established that the sense of team trust and pleasure that comes with the pride of workmanship, along with the satisfaction of knowing that a task was completed effectively, all work to impact team performance


    The impact of leadership is also essential in evaluating the performance of virtual teams
In addition to traditional knowledge that leaders must possess, virtual team leaders also have to be technologically adept at following and understanding the range and scope of new technology that is constantly being introduced into the market. Leaders in the virtual team environment have to be willing to review and test new communication channels that can help streamline the communication process that the team uses. Identifying key members for virtual teams can also be challenging. In conventional teams, the department or manager creating the team might have personal interactions with all members of the organization through which the individuals are selected. In virtual teams the members might be selected just from knowledge of their skills without being able to identify other working habits and behavior patterns.
Hertel, Konradt, and Orlikowski (2004) studied virtual team interdependence and motivational challenges, and discovered that management practices related to goal, task, and outcome interdependence correlated with the effectiveness of the teams (p. 1). For the study, researchers used the dependent variable of the managers ratings of team effectiveness (Hertel, Konradt,  Orlikowski, 2004, p. 16), which relates to the independent variable of team dynamics, as well as the dependent variable of virtual team effectiveness. In the research conducted by Paul, Samarah, Seetharaman, and Mykytyns (2005) on conflict management style in virtual teams, the independent variables were defined as the collaborative conflict management style of each group and individualism-collectivism (p. 199). The four dependent variables identified for that study were satisfaction with the decision process, perceived decision quality, perceived participation, and degree of agreement (p. 200).

In their study of the effects of psychological and social remoteness on the virtual environment, Stanton, Ashleigh, Roberts, and Xus (2003) found that teams working in the same location performed better than teams who were remote from one another (p. 1215). Stanton et al.s assignment of the dependent variable of group identity is related to the independent variables of organizational commitmentpersonal attachment and team dynamics, which will be investigated and assessed in the proposed research. For Paul and McDaniels (2004) study of interpersonal trust in the virtual collaborative relationship, the researchers used variables of types of trust defined as interpersonal, calculative, competence, relational, and integrated. The examination of trust is related to the independent variable of team dynamics, as well as the choice of the following dependent variables virtual team satisfaction and virtual team effectiveness.

Paul and McDaniels (2004) study on interpersonal trust as it affects the performance of virtual teams revealed that trust is an important factor for successful performance in a virtual collaborative relationship (p. 183). Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, and Gibson (2004) submitted, the lack of existing research on virtual teams warrants the assessment of a comprehensive model of virtual team performance (p. 187). The statement points to the need for further research to be conducted on the subject of virtual teams. Additionally, Brown, Poole, and Rodgers (2004) claimed trust has been a focus of research on virtual collaboration in distributed teams, e-commerce, e-learning, and telemedicine in their study of virtual collaboration (p. 115).

Focusing on the element of trust as it impacts the virtual teams performance is strongly related to the proposed research. Trust impacts every variable identified, whether it involves the interpersonal trust of other team members and members of management, or trust in the reliability of technology and the effectiveness of virtual communications. In analyzing the limitations of their 2004 study on virtual team management, Hertel,  Konradt, and Orlikowski (2004) suggested, further research is desirable to explore virtual teams that are more autonomous, have more flexible boundaries (e.g., including freelancers), andor are more heterogeneous (different cultures, occupations, etc.) (p. 25). The study by Paul and McDaniel (2004), which discussed trust in the virtual workplace, recommended future research needs to determine whether integrative trust is a new kind of trust or just a mixture of other types of trust (p. 212). Such a statement points out not only a need for further research into virtual teams, but also demonstrated how the contributions of such research are needed in areas that may or may not be directly related to virtual teams performance.

    In the study by Paul, Samarah, Seetharaman, and Mykytyn, Jr. (2005), the researchers specifically addressed the issue of managing conflicts within virtual team settings and found a positive relationship between collaborative conflict management and performance, and that group diversity was found to have a moderating influence between collaborative style and group performance, and collaborative style was influenced by the individualistic-collectivistic orientations (p. 186). Among the variables identified for their study, a moderating variable was defined as group type, and could be homogeneous or heterogeneous (p. 199).

    Numerous variables in Hertel, Konradt, and Orlikowskis (2004) study on virtual team management were described as mediating. The researchers stated weak evidence was found for valence as mediator between quality of goal setting and team effectiveness (p. 21) and in order to test a mediation effect of instrumentality, first, quality of goal setting was used to regress instrumentality as a mediator variable (p. 21). Additionally, the researchers report evidence was found that effects of goal setting on team effectiveness are partly mediated by the perceived instrumentality of personal contributions for the team (p. 21).

    As much as the research shows that virtual teams have plenty to offer in terms of accomplishing the increasingly demanding objectives of the organization, the research also shows that the virtual team environment can be problematic. One of the first challenges facing the virtual team is the fact of its geographic and temporal virtuality, both of which can contribute to group conflict. The research by Hinds and Bailey (2000) point to a confounding aspect of virtual teams, which is that they can be either geographically virtual or temporally virtual, with the former manifested by teams whose members are not physically proximal to each other and the latter manifested by teams that span shifts or time zones (p. C1).

    De Pillis and Furumo (2007) also established that the implementation of virtual teams carries with it considerable costs over the assembly and implementation of conventional, non-virtual team settings.
Contributing to those costs are issues that exist in team dynamics, primary of which is the inability to share or respond to non-verbal cues. According to de Pillis and Furumo (2007), the lack of media richness or non-verbal cues, such as facial expressions, can lead to a downward spiral of decreased trust and commitment in a group (p. 93). The imperative of trust in relation to virtual team success emerges over and over again in the research. It can be assumed however that, while trust might be an important factor in the success of virtual teams, it is clearly a factor that requires purposeful strategies to develop and preserve in the virtual team environment. It will not, therefore, be considered as one of the critical factors of success that are likely to emerge from the proposed research.

    Wardell (1998) established that virtual team leaders should actually anticipate conflict as well as be prepared to address it. It has been submitted in the research that managers or team leaders are responsible for watching for conflict as well as learning to manage it. Even more interesting is the claim that conflict is inevitable, in virtual teams as well as in conventional ones (Wardell, 1998, p. 5). The research also showed, however, that the virtual team environment is vulnerable to factors that contribute to conflict that conventional team settings typically avoid, including the absence of verbal cues.

Like trust, the research indicated that virtual teams depend significantly on the elements of communication and technology. Because virtual teams are essentially denied access to the face-to-face communication on which most team relationships are built, they depend even more highly on communication and information technologies such as company intranets, team conference calls, email, video conferencing and various groupware applications that allow virtual team members to tap into the intelligence expertise of other team members (Kerber  Buono, 2004, p. 5).

A study by Kirkman (2004) reveals that the success of a virtual team is related to the knowledge acquiredpossessed by its team members during the course of a project. This assists in solving consumer problems, increasing the consumer satisfaction  a direct indicator of the projects success. The business landscape is endowed with ever changing, complicated risks, which virtual teams are able to tackle, because of their ability to respond positively to global business uncertainties. This implies that the organizations that involve virtual teams to solve their problems and manage their uncertainties, are likely to record high performance among their peers that do the reverse, hence gaining sustainable competitive advantage in the challenging market environment. Kirkman (2004) also found that virtual teams enhance the use of geographically distributed resources, which plays a vital role in increasing the overall performance of a company. When information from culturally different members is shared often, trust is created the team members. Trust increases team performance, resulting from ability by members to evaluate and understand the information of others. There is need for every organization to develop an effective ways of promoting an information sharing culture in order to gain benefits from virtual teams. This can be done by encouraging the members of virtual teams to share information willingly within the organizations, which leads to growth and innovation of business. In addition, managers should direct their efforts towards promoting knowledge sharing behaviour

Importance and impact of training virtual teams
    Many studies have shown that effective and efficient virtual teams communication leads to success of the project. Lack of communication leads to misuse of knowledge as well as resources, which in turn results in poor performance of the team.  Hence, training is needed so that members of the virtual teams gain necessary skills and also learn to share information.

According to Godar and Ferris (2004), effective virtual teaming requires special skills, knowledge, and technical capabilities. For instance, team members must understand how to communicate using various technologies, ranging from simple, lean technologies, like telephones and e-mail, to more complex innovations, such as decision support systems or specialized collaborative software packages (p. 235). Nevertheless, it is pointed out correctly by Bradley and Beyerlein (2008) that virtual teams are not simply regular teams working together over technology. There are additional characteristics that raise challenges for smooth functioning and high performance. Hence, learning technology is not enough a valuable training and development program also addresses the issues around communication and trust through an action-learning sequence that has been customized to a teams need (p. 345)

    According to Hill (2007), to assist in establishing a connection between virtual team members, training is needed prior to moving into a virtual team design. In addition to technology, the team members also need to be trained on how to use the technology to communicate effectively. Since, many of the traditional nonverbal cues i.e. body language, hand gestures etc., used in communication are lost in electronic exchanges, virtual team members benefit from training in how to use more linguistic precision in their communications. Virtual team members also need training in team management, and interpersonal skills such as maintaining self esteem, reaching consensus, and conflict resolution. Further, it is essential to train and educate team members in different working styles of each of the team members. This type of training, if conducted early in the teams development, will help in eliminating misunderstandings that may be disruptive to the working of a virtual team. Team members, who understand one anothers working styles and trust one another, are less likely to attach negative interpretations to incomplete or unclear communications (p. 119).

    However, Hill (2007) also agrees that the training should occur not only at the teams inception, but when new members enter the team as well. Further, like any other project team member, virtual team members also require training from time to time. This includes skill and competency training in their professional discipline training in products, processes, and practices of the relevant organization and training associated with the introduction of tool s and technology. It is imperative that virtual team members are included in the training plans created for the team. Further, the methods of imparting the training to employees also needs to include alternative methods such as online programs, to merge the training process with the work-related pressures (p. 119, 363).

    According to Martocchio (2006), following are the key steps to train a virtual team identify skills that currently exist and identify the skills that are needed i.e. perform a gap analysis. In addition, types of skills e.g. behavioural, cognitive etc., required for the virtual team to obtain optimal performance, must be identified. Such skills help the virtual teams in performing to their full capacity. Researchers have repeatedly pointed out that the overall goal of training is to link training content to desired task behaviours. Nevertheless, some of the aspects of virtual teams go beyond the scope of general training (p. 202).

    According to Lumsden et. al. (2009), the challenges facing virtual teams change over the lifecycle of the virtual team. They point out that, as teams develop, additional training modules need to focus on process-related issues such as conducting an effective virtual team meeting, problem solving, and decision making. In line with other researchers, Lumsden et. al. (2009) also agree that training modules need to be flexible and should be modified or combined to match the training needs of each virtual team member. However, regarding the flexibility of modules, they hold a slightly different view point. They agree that the modules must be flexible and team members should be able to compete the training at their convenience (within a preset deadline), however, the entire team must complete other training modules in a specified sequence. This is necessary because one of the aims of training is to increase collaboration among team members, and collectively working through the training and corresponding discussions helps in promoting closeness and trust among the team members. Hence, training must always have a group component. Lumsden et. al. (2009) also point out that while training in process is important, the technology training retains its significance. Research has shown that virtual team members who are comfortable with technology are more likely to use it. Also the training must match technology tools and team tasks, as this helps the team members to understand which technology is most appropriate for a specific purpose and how to use it. For instance, after merely installing a Lotus Notes database and training people on the software, a firm cannot expect teams to populate it correctly and frequently. In addition to training, explaining operating procedures for frequency of reporting and type of document to be generated for each required case is just as important (p. 100-101).

Finally for virtual teams, especially those that are geographically dispersed, cross cultural training is extremely important. This type of training expands the understanding of differences in languages, culture norms and values among the members of a virtual team, which is frequently critical to the success of the virtual team. Cross-cultural training is designed to help virtual teams overcome communications barriers. It is known that the meaning of words and the context in which they are spoken differ in various cultures. Hence, virtual team members need to develop high precision in their communications. Training programs should point out the ease with which cross-cultural misunderstandings may occur and how to avoid such situations by following specific norms regarding language and behaviour. Alerting global team members to deeply ingrained cultural values goes a long way towards avoiding potential misunderstandings. Cross-cultural training also prepares virtual team members for religious differences that may influence virtual team performance. (Coronas, Oliva, 2008, p.108-109)

The Imperative of Further Research   
One recurring theme in the existing literature was the mention of a need for further research on virtual teams. Zakaria, Amelinckx, and Wilemon (2004) submitted, While research is clearly accelerating on global virtual teams, more research is needed as organizations are increasingly using this new organizational approach to accomplish important tasks (p. 25). Additionally, Hertel, Konradt, and Orlikowski (2004) stated that Distributed or virtual teams are no longer a new or exotic work form, but rather an established reality in many companies and non-profit organizations. However, surprisingly few quantitative field studies are available on existing virtual teams (pp. 1-2).

A review of the literature revealed that virtual teams have garnered considerable attention in the research however, a dearth of research still exists in some areas, and especially on the subject of what makes virtual teams effective over conventional, non-virtual team settings. Although the critical factors of successful virtual team performance could be investigated by looking solely at the dynamics, function, and outcome of virtual teamwork, the exploration of attitudes and opinions of virtual team members on virtual teams and the virtual team environment is expected to shed some light on how the latter measures up to the conventional team environment.

Summary
    The growing interest in and application of virtual teams can be credited to advances in technology and the imperative that businesses respond to those advances as part of building strategies and meeting objectives.  As a consequence, the use of a virtual team approach spans almost every large organization and every industry where the necessary communication and information technologies abound. The value of virtual teams in businesses today is manifested in their application across organizations as well as their supply chains. Virtual teamwork is different from conventional teamwork in a number of ways, not the least of which is in the lack of proximity among team members and greater demands on communication.  At the same time, virtual teams can boast identifiable advantages in their diversity and their utilization of new technologies.
A review of the literature also demonstrated that the performance of virtual teams is influenced by numerous factors, including leadership, trust, interaction and responsiveness.  While factors like these might also influence the performance of conventional teams, the unique characteristics of the virtual team and virtual team environment often work to intensify the power of that influence when it comes to affecting greater success or contributing to failure. The factors that contribute to the successful performance of virtual teams are the focus of the present research. Although the literature revealed that the interest in and application of virtual teams has increased over the last decade, it also demonstrated that identifiable gaps in the research on virtual teams exist. This assertion was especially true on the topic of what factors associated with virtual teams and the virtual team environment contributes to improved or higher levels of performance. The present study was designed to close that gap by identifying what those factors are and by fostering further research in the area of virtual team performance.


RESEARCH METHODtc Chapter III Methodology f C l 1
The distinction of virtual teams as proximally distant, increasingly diverse, and in high demand in comparison to conventional teams merits an investigation of what factors contribute to the successful performance of virtual teams. As described by Furst, Reeves, Rosen, and Blackburn (2004), Virtual project teams represent a growing response to the need for high-quality, low-cost, rapid solutions to complex organizational problems (p. 6). The purpose of this research was to investigate some of the critical success factors of virtual team performance. This study assessed the perceptions, attitudes and opinions of virtual team leaders and members with regard to larger factor classifications such as communications, technology, team dynamics and effectiveness as well as personal and professional satisfaction. 

The objective of this research was to determine if and to what extent these and other factors might contribute to successful virtual project outcomes, with an emphasis on identifying how virtual teams can operate more successfully. The ultimate goal of this research was to process and analyze the data on the perceptions, attitudes, and opinions and then develop a list of critical success factors of successful virtual team performance that support policy and training recommendations for virtual team leaders and team members.

Both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of this research study were guided by the following research questions

What are the perceived advantages, if any, of working in the virtual   team environment
How does working in the virtual team environment compare with working in the conventional, non-virtual team setting

How conducive is the virtual team environment to virtual team performance
The research questions were developed to guide both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the research. The first question was formulated to measure the perceived advantages, if any, of working in the virtual team environment. The research questions contributed to the development of the survey questionnaire, which generated both qualitative and quantitative data. It was important to establish that the research and data analysis did not include the measure of virtual team performance. On the contrary, performance was very difficult to measure. Performance was represented in the research by any patterns or themes that were evident in the perceived factors of advantage in the virtual team environment over conventional team settings and the perceived impact of those factors on the successful outcomes of virtual teamwork.

Research Methods and Design
    tc Overview f C l 2Virtual teams exist in various capacities and are formed for a variety of reasons. Johnson (2002) noted that organizations that are situated in adverse or undesirable locations may desperately need to recruit employees who have the right skills but do not want to move (p. 70). Organizations like these are often required to use virtual teamwork to integrate employees who were added through mergers and acquisitions (p. 70). An examination of this phenomenon was made through a mixed-methodology that employed both qualitative and quantitative methods. This study was involved in the collection of information from the published research as well as from a purposively sampled group of subjects. The exploration of the published research was supported by the distribution of a survey questionnaire designed to elicit experience, attitudes and opinions on what are the critical success factors of virtual teamwork.

The goal of the method was to identify the critical success factors of virtual team work that make it an important option in addressing organizational challenges. Evidence was sought regarding the factors that could be identified for their influence on successful outcomes of virtual team performance. It was not the intention that the results of the research be easily replicated however, it was expected that the results will be beneficial to organizations that are considering or currently using virtual teams as an alternative to conventional teams or to support conventional team projects.

In the present case, only one group of individuals was examined, which were those who worked in both the virtual and conventional non-virtual team environment. This study was used as a means by which to evaluate how teams operate successfully in the virtual team environment.

The research questions provided a guide in the pursuit and discovery of critical success factors from both a review of the literature and the results of the survey questionnaire on virtual team performance. This research was used to evaluate the attitudes and opinions of virtual team workers and establish what factors have an impact on virtual team performance. The mixed-methodology chosen for this research was appropriate to the topic of study, as it supported the collection and analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data necessary to answer the question of how work teams could operate successfully in a virtual environment.  The mixed-methodology was based on the goal of the research to identify the critical success factors of virtual teams the types of factors that validate the shift from the conventional team setting to the virtual team setting in the contemporary organization.

The process of developing this research design was problematic in so far as it was difficult to identify and establish a research approach that was most appropriate to discovering the critical success factors of virtual teams. One of the primary reasons was that, while qualitative approaches to explaining phenomenon are often avoided by researchers because they are weak on validity and the ability to generalize, research designs that employ a wholly quantitative approach can miss the rich descriptions of phenomenon that qualitative data provides (Tucker, Powell  Myer, 1995). The goal of this study was not to establish if or how virtual teams are more effective than conventional teams or if virtual team settings are more effective than conventional team settings.  Rather, the goal of this research was to identify critical success factors of virtual teams as perceived by individuals who have worked in both the conventional team setting and the virtual team setting. As a consequence, the research design did not include the collection of quantitative data for the purpose of making comparisons or identifying correlations.

Quantitative data was collected for the purpose of providing descriptive statistics that gave more meaning to the qualitative data that was collected. Todd, Nerliched, Mckeown and Clarke (2004) submitted a justification for the collection of concurrent qualitative and quantitative data in that it supports an interpretation of peoples reasons and rationalizations as well as the preference construction processes that might underlie the quantitative responses (p. 128). Qualitative and quantitative research methodologies are generally viewed as polar approaches to examining phenomenon. Bowling and Ebrahim (2005) submitted that the differences between qualitative and quantitative research are often viewed simply as words versus numbers, natural settings versus artificial settings, meanings versus behavior and idealism versus realism (p. 231). 

Differences like these are blamed by Bowling and Ebrahim (2005) for the notion that qualitative and quantitative data and research methods cannot or should not be combined. A mixed-methodology supports the notion that research questions are often more important than method, especially in cases where a goal of the research is to emphasize the experiences of the study population (Bowling  Ebrahim, 2005). The goal of the research was to emphasize the experiences of individuals who have experienced both conventional and virtual team settings.

The mixed-methodology was an example of intra-mixing both qualitative and quantitative methods. The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods began at the data collection phase, with both components brought together within the same method.  The data collection method included the distribution of a questionnaire consisting of both open and closed questions. The mixed-methodology also allowed for an intra-method of data analysis. The approach was patterned after the model of intra-method data analysis developed by Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie (2003), which begins with data reduction that follows traditional qualitative techniques such as the coding of themes that are identified in the qualitative data and quantitative techniques, such as the production of descriptive statistics (in Bowling  Ebrahim, 2005, p. 235).  For this study, the data was transformed by counting emerging themes in the qualitative data and producing narrative descriptions of the quantitative data (p. 235).

The qualitative and quantitative data was collected from the same study sample and was not correlated or compared but rather, was consolidated into a coherent whole (Bowling  Ebrahim, 2005, p. 235). It is important to note that, although method triangulation is often used when it comes to integrating qualitative and quantitative methods in a mixed-methods approach, it was not used because the goal was not to check the validity of the qualitative and quantitative data by comparing them (p. 233). The research design also excluded the collection of quantitative data for the purpose of making comparisons or identifying correlations, but rather for the purpose of providing descriptive statistics that give more meaning to the qualitative data that was collected (Todd, Mckeown  Clarke, 2004). Complementarities of the qualitative and quantitative data however were identified to establish if and how the findings derived from one method might enhance the finding derived from the other (p. 233).

In both cases, the quantitative and qualitative data were examined separately for patterns and similarities and then together for evidence of complementarities. The patterns, similarities and complementarities were then used to develop a list of critical success factors of successful virtual team performance that support policy and training recommendations for virtual team leaders and team members.tc Figure 1  Research Model f D l 1
    The research design was built on the imperative of identifying how and why virtual teams are quickly becoming the norm in many organizations and more specifically, what are the factors that make virtual teams a successful alternative to conventional team settings. As the shift to virtual environments becomes more prevalent in organizations, it would be valuable to investigate some of the factors that contribute to the success of such an environment. This research examined the perceptions of individuals with experience in both virtual and conventional team environments on the factors that contribute to team success. The originality of the research was manifested in its examination of teams of people who have already made the transition to virtual work from the conventional face-to-face interaction. The aim of the study was to identify common patterns that point to the critical factors of success in virtual team performance.    The outcome of this study may provide insight for both researchers and practitioners in better understanding the factors that contribute to the virtual teams ability to operate effectively. Future researchers may utilize the research framework to further understand and investigate other factors that are critical in establishing successful virtual teams as well as teams in other settings. As virtual project work is rapidly infiltrating the workplace, the framework will provide practitioners with some critical tools to focus on in order to implement successful virtual project work. Virtual arrangements are gaining widespread popularity as more and more organizations realize the benefits of the model. The formation and existence of virtual organizations is, therefore, an influential process in todays society and an important one to study.

When considering the options available for the design of a research study, it is clear that a thorough evaluation of those options must be conducted to determine the major strengths and weaknesses inherent within each option. While some designs may seem optimal at first glance, further study reveals weaknesses that might impact the results and negate the quality or usefulness of the studys results. As Streiner and Norman (1998) clarified, The important point is that the choice of study design depends on the question being asked (p. 65). This study adopted a mix-methods approach that was designed to generate qualitative data in the form of responses to open-ended questions (Appendix A) as well as quantitative data in the form of responses to close-ended questions (Appendix B). Although this study did not involve the interaction between researcher and the study subjects, every effort was made to avoid bias and the otherwise confounding effects of researcher intervention.

The basic structure of this research study included
Review of the literature on virtual teams and outcomes.
Identification of the research questions.
Selection of the research methodology (mixed-method).
Design of the survey questionnaire. 
Distribution of finished survey questionnaire.
Collection, processing, and analysis of the data.
Report on the research in the form of findings.

Participants
Purposive sampling was used in this study, which along with probability sampling, was one of the primary methods used in a mixed-methodology research design (Bowling  Ebrahim, 2005, p. 237). The sample for the study included virtual team leaders and managers and virtual team members working on current or past virtual projects in a variety of businesses, locations, industries, and demographics from the west coast to the east coast of the United States. Participants were drawn from a population made up of individuals who have worked in both the virtual and conventional non-virtual team environment. Purposive sampling was not regarded as the strongest basis for making generalizations from the resultant data (Walliman, 2006, p 78). At the same time, it would be a waste of resources to go with a probability sampling only to discover that fewer than half had experience in both virtual and non-virtual team environments.

The participants for this study, therefore, were selected through a process of identifying organizations in the United States of America from various industries that have utilized virtual teams for at least 3 years. Identifying these organizations was accomplished with the assistance of two other individuals who assisted in canvassing organizations from the published Yellow Book listings on whether or not they use virtual teams, how long they have used them, and if they were interested in participating in this study. From the list that was developed, the pool of potential study participants was further reduced on the criteria of experience in both virtual and non-virtual team environments and the willingness to participate in the completion and submission of the survey questionnaire. From a final pool of at least 250 individuals, all received the survey questionnaires through the mail, with an anticipated return of at least 50 survey questionnaires. An estimated return of 20 of the surveys was relatively high, however, it was based on the established interest of the individuals who were selected for the final pool as well as the plan for a follow-up call to individuals who failed to return their surveys by a selected date. Although the research method included quantitative analysis, such analysis was not used to test a hypothesis or hypotheses. Power analysis, therefore, was not used to estimate adequate sample size.  A large sample was deemed unnecessary for this study because the criteria that each participant must meet for being typical or representative of the study population was relatively simple and included only the requisite of possessing experience in both conventional and virtual team environments. No other characteristics of this population were identified for making some individuals more typical or representative than others.

MaterialsInstruments
The mixed-method approach to this study included an intra-mixing of both qualitative and quantitative methods. A survey questionnaire that was designed to collect both qualitative and quantitative data was used in this study. The method of data collection included the distribution of a questionnaire consisting of both open and closed questions. The quantitative data, drawn from the close-ended questions in the questionnaire, was used to complement the information drawn from the qualitative phase of the research. In terms of the quantitative portion of the study instrument, the survey questionnaire consisted of 15 items and was based on a four-point Likert Scale which was scored as follows (1) Strongly Agree, (2) Agree, (3) Disagree, and (4) Strongly Disagree. The demographic variables of age and gender were collected in the survey questionnaire, yet they were not part of any analysis designed to find a relationship between them and other variables. In terms of the qualitative instrument, the questionnaire included a question scheme of 3 primary open-ended questions and 15 sub-questions.

Data Collection, Processing, and Analysistc Data Collection f C l 2
This study was not restricted to any one industry but rather, was used to gather as much information as possible about the factors that affect virtual team operations across different industries. In addition, the data were restricted to one country, the United States of America. The quantitative and qualitative phases of the research were conducted using a single study instrument in the form of a survey questionnaire and, while the data collected addressed the same elements (environment-specific conditions, inputs and outcomes) they provided different representations of those elements. For example, both phases addressed environment-specific conditions such as access to technology and technological support. They also addressed inputs such as collaboration and information sharing and outputs such as achievement and productivity. The different representations of these elements were manifested in the attitudes and opinions that were generated in the qualitative phase and the perceptions that were identified in the quantitative phase.

The data collection process in survey methodology typically involves survey questionnaires and interviews.

Survey questionnaires are generally designed and created by the individual conducting the study. A plethora of literature exists that can help researchers design surveys that are effective and can collect the desired data in the best manner. The relevant factors were addressed in the survey questionnaires which were distributed among a purposive sample of individuals working in organizations that currently utilize virtual teams and that have experience in both virtual and non-virtual team environments.  It was especially vital that bias in the development of the open-ended and, to some degree, the close-ended question be avoided to prevent false or skewed results.

It is important to note that in spite of all the information that can be collected using the survey method, there were some disadvantages of using survey methods. Surveys, both survey questionnaires and interviews, were time consuming and if large numbers of subjects were required.  The challenges were mitigated to some degree by the distribution of survey questionnaires that encompassed both open-ended questions that elicited qualitative responses and close-ended questions that generated quantitative data. The integrity and the quality of the data could become questionable if the population from which the data was collected was not adequately diversified and independent.

 High interrelation among the subjects may indicate a trend or pattern that might not be true with respect to the entire population and therefore, was avoided.

Prior to any survey undertaking, the constraints and limitations of the survey were understood. The constraints were identified as time, expertise of the team, and the cost of doing the survey. The evaluation of the factors needed to be realistic and reasonably accurate to ensure that the study could be completed in a manner that was both meaningful and appropriate for the task. In addition, prior to the start of any study it was important to identify a standard for data collection and analysis and the process was kept consistent for all data collection and analysis. Survey data collection required great amounts of input, study, and analysis from the researcher. Individuals were expected to be unbiased when completing the survey. Cross-referencing and validation along the way helped weed out the inconsistent answers that were given.

 As noted in the previous section on the selection of participants, the intended population consisted of individuals who have been identified as having experience in both the conventional and the virtual teamwork environment. The intended population was considered unique and potentially limited, which explained why the participation of 50 such individuals was considered an adequate sample of this population. As noted previously, they were identified as employees working in organizations that have used both conventional and virtual teamwork strategies and, more specifically, as employees who have participated in both teamwork environments.

    Processing and analysis were essential to translating the collected data into the kind of information that can be used to answer the research questions and ultimately provide a framework for better understanding the critical success factors of virtual team performance. Based on the fact that this research study included the collection of both qualitative and quantitative data, the processing included both qualitative and quantitative methods.  The responses that were generated from the survey questionnaire were processed with the support of a statistics software program such as SPSS or the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Green Salkind, 2005).  Analysis of the survey questionnaire data was largely descriptive in nature. Quantitative analysis included generating single and multiple variable frequency tables, calculating means, cross-tabulation and weighting. Qualitative analysis involved identifying patterns and themes in multiple responses. Both involved the graphical illustration of the data through charts and graphs.

The data were quantized, wherever possible, by similarly counting the frequency of the occurrence of responses (Tashakkori  Teddlie, 1998, p. 153). The analysis of the data generated from the survey questionnaires, therefore, included calculating the frequency of responses on each item, which were then used to infer the perceptions of individuals working in virtual teams on the various items that are addressed in the survey. The qualitative data generated from the questionnaire were processed through a content analysis that identifies patterns and themes in the responses. Statistical analysis remained relatively simple and included the creation of summary statistics. The results of the processing and analysis were represented in the form of frequency and cross-tabulation tables, graphs and charts, all of which it was anticipated will support the interpretation of the data toward the identification of the critical success factors of virtual team performance. 

Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations
It was assumed that the application of a mixed-methodology would contribute to the generation of data that is marked by rich detail and identifiable patterns, themes and frequency of events data that can be processed and analyzed toward the culmination of a clear set of critical success factors of virtual team performance. The research was not directed at the discovery of new or obscure factors of success. On the contrary, many factors were identified prior to the implementation of the study nonetheless, it was the purpose and goal of this research study to confirm the previously identified as well as the assumed factors of success based on an independent investigation addressing those factors.

Potential limitations were examined in previous chapters, however, the mixed-methodology presented immediate limitations in the fact that it did not manifest the same level of application or garner the same support or reception as the solely qualitative or quantitative research design. Nevertheless, every effort was made to support rigorous organization and processing of the data. It was anticipated that what limitations exist or emerge will be moderated by the steps to preserve the trustworthiness of the research including the use of multiple data sources, accurate description of the context being studied, and the application of academic rigor when it comes to data analysis and discussion of the results.

Ethical Assurancestc  Ethical Assurances  f C l 2
    When conducting any type of research involving human subjects, stringent ethical guidelines must be followed, and they must be considered even in the earliest planning stages of a research design. A wealth of literature devoted to the study of ethics in research is available for the benefit of those planning to carry out research, and one can find within such literature the clear description of concepts relevant to design planning. In the context of this investigation of the critical success factors of virtual team performance, there were a variety of ethical considerations that were taken into account. 

It was clear from the current literature that the researchers attitude regarding ethics was an important factor in determining the ethical outcome of the study. Some research misbehaviors were described as inadequate record keeping, changing the design or methodology of a study in response to pressure from a funding source, and dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate (Hetman et al., 2005, p. 49). Such elements reinforced the idea that the researcher must be vigilant to ensure that personal gut feelings and other factors external to the researchs resulting data were not permitted to affect the data or weaken its integrity.

    Acquiring the consent of research participants was also a matter for consideration in the determination of an investigations ethical strength. Consent required that researchers must secure the consent of research subjects, and that consent must be voluntary, competent, informed, and comprehending (Haggerty, 2004, p. 404). Consent was achieved, in some environments, through oral agreement, but in many cases a written document was more appropriate and gave greater reassurance to the researcher, who then has a record of the participants consent (Haggerty, 2004, p. 404).

Informed consent also required that potential participants were provided with a thorough description of the purpose of the research, expected duration and procedures, as well as their right to decline participation andor withdraw from the research and any consequences of such actions (Colvin  Lanigan, 2005, p. 35). Likewise, participants must be informed of factors that may influence their willingness to participate, as well as the benefits and incentives of participation (Colvin  Lanigan, 2005, p. 35). Participants of this study were provided with contact information for the individuals who can answer questions about the study and the rights of the studys research participants (Colvin  Lanigan, 2005, p. 35).

In quantitative research, it was essential to recognize that there is a crucial difference between seeking research to address certain questions, quantify trends, identify or assess the importance of causal factors, and seeking support for predetermined conclusions. The distinction existed in the intent of conducting the research, the purposes for which the research was being used, and how the objectives affected the topics, methods, data, and how the findings were being reported. Generating data merely to substantiate predetermined conclusions is not research. Therefore, it is vital that the researcher attempts to make decisions that maintain the objectivity and credibility of the research project.

Similar emphasis was placed on the conduct of qualitative research for this study. Both qualitative and quantitative research demand integrity.  Authors Carton and Hirzy (1998) submitted that, the keystone of professional conduct is integrity. Professionals, therefore, must be responsible for the validity of their work, which must be conducted without dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or discrimination. Researchers must not put their professional judgment aside by twisting facts andor conclusions in order to reach a desired outcome.  Carton and Hirzy (1998) also suggested that researchers must (a) be responsible for the validity of their own work, (b) ensure that the research is done objectively, (c) not condone misrepresentation of their work, (d) fully disclose any possible conflict of interest, (e) not be involved in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or discrimination, and (f) not accept a research project if it is contingent upon violating their code of ethics.

Every effort was made to comply with ethical standards that guided qualitative and quantitative research including, but not confined to, pursuing validity in the research, maintaining objectivity, rejecting any misrepresentation of the research, being prepared to provide full disclosure in the case of a conflict of interest and avoiding all forms of deception and discrimination. Ethical consideration was demonstrated in this research study through the verbal andor written explanation of terms of privacy and confidentiality as well as the verbal andor written explanation of the express purpose, use and boundaries of the study and its results.

Summary
    A mixed-method research design was used in this study, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methods in the methodology. The sample for the study included virtual team leaders and managers and virtual team members working on current or past virtual projects in a variety of businesses, locations, industries, and demographics from the west coast to the east coast of the United States. A survey questionnaire that was designed to collect both qualitative and quantitative data was used in this study. The method of data collection included the distribution of a questionnaire consisting of both open and closed questions. The quantitative data, drawn from the close-ended questions in the questionnaire, was used to complement the information drawn from the qualitative phase of the research. In terms of the quantitative portion of the study instrument, the survey questionnaire consisted of 15 items and was based on a four-point Likert Scale. The responses that were generated from the survey questionnaire were processed with the support of a statistics software program such as SPSS or the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Green Salkind, 2005).  Analysis of the survey questionnaire data was largely descriptive in nature. Quantitative analysis included generating single and multiple variable frequency tables, calculating means, cross-tabulation and weighting. Qualitative analysis involved identifying patterns and themes in multiple responses. Chapter 4 will contain the results of this study.



FINDINGS
    Virtual teams are a burgeoning presence in industry whose dynamics are critical to its success. The main objective of the current study was to characterize virtual teamwork in terms of virtual team members perceptions of the virtual team setting and environment. In line with this, three research questions were formulated

What are the perceived advantages, if any, of working in the virtual team environment

How does working in the virtual team environment compare with working in the conventional, non-virtual team setting

How conducive is the virtual team environment to virtual team performance
The research questions were addressed through the utilization of frequency tables of questionnaire data and supporting qualitative data. The purpose of qualitative data was to confirm the quantitative results while adding depth and dimension to the findings. The quantitative results are shown after the descriptives, followed by the qualitative results.
Description of the Sample

    The frequency counts and percentages for the sample demographics are presented in Table 1. Among the 104 participants who received the questionnaire, 95 had consented to participate in the present study. Fifty-four percent of the participants were male while 46 were female.  Participants were asked to identify their age range 18-25 (12), 26-35 (33), 36-45 (24), 46-55 (18), and over 55 (12). The median age range of the 95 participants was 36-45, though a third of the participants were aged 26-35. Most of the participants were virtual team members (70), with approximately as many virtual teams leaders (14) as there are virtual team managers (16). The participants were mostly involved in banking or financial services (23), services or consulting (15), and insurance or brokerage (11).

Certain demographic variables were more likely to co-occur than others as shown through cross-tabulation of demographic data. The results of the cross-tabulations are presented in Table 2 and Table 3. Age and gender seem to have a significant relationship, with c2  86.184 (10, N  95, p  .01). Female virtual team participants tend to be younger than male participants, with older male participants at a median age between 36-45 years old. Virtual team status is also related to gender (c2  20.971, 10, N  95, p  .01). More males held leadership positions in virtual teams than females among the participants. Notably, there was no relationship between age and virtual team status (c2  12.511, 15, N  95, p  .64) as shown in Table 3.

Results
    This section contained the presentation of results. The quantitative results were accompanied by tables to illustrate the findings the qualitative results were presented using quotes and summary. Both findings were evaluated in the succeeding section.

Perceptions of Virtual Team Environment
    The perceptions of virtual team environment were measured with a questionnaire developed by the researcher using a Likert scale. Participants were asked whether they strongly agreed, agreed, disagreed, or strongly disagreed with an item based on their opinions of the virtual team environment. The results of the items are discussed together because of the similar findings across all items, which are displayed in Table 4. In all cases, more than 50 of the respondents agree with the item on perceptions of the virtual team environment. A majority agreed that the virtual team environment supports independence (85.6, sum of strongly agree and agree), creativity (75.5), diversity (75.5), team identity (70.0), collaboration (72.2), information sharing (76.7), sense of belonging in the organization (62.2), and effectiveness (66.6). They concurred upon the importance of competencies (76.6), achievement (72.2), and communication (82.3) in the virtual team. Furthermore, they believe that virtual teams receive more technological support (76.6) and are easier to facilitate (72.2). The majority of participants felt personally satisfied with the virtual team environment (68.9). In sum, approximately three quarters of the participants held positive opinions of the virtual team environment.


    Indeed, much of these findings were confirmed and further elaborated in the qualitative results. Participants were asked, Based on your experience in both conventional and virtual team environments, what do you believe are the advantages of working as a member of a virtual team One frequent answer was that virtual team environments allow them much more freedom and flexibility in their work and the use of their time. Another perceived advantage was savings of time and resources spent on transportation and venue that are not necessary with virtual teams. These are summed up in one participants answer, Greater independence time savings because no travel required its cheaper as no meeting room has to be found maintained. Another common theme that emerged was experience with diversity of opinions and cultures, as one participant put it, Helps you improve your communication skills, expands your knowledge of other cultures. Many participants claimed increased productivity in the virtual team environment. Others noted that the setting was less formal, that it is easier to arrive at a consensus, there are lower stress levels and that there are less distractions. One participant underscored the importance of experienced managers in place in order for the benefits to manifest. Notably, some participants did not believe that there was any specific advantage to using virtual teams.
Qualitative Analyses of Perceived Effectiveness of Virtual Teams

Participants were asked open-ended questions whether the virtual team was effective in certain specific aspects team cooperation and collaboration, personal independence, personal motivation, team productivity, personal and professional satisfaction, team performance, and sense of belonging. Frequent and unique answers are discussed in the succeeding sections, along with the predominant valence (positive or negative) of response for that item.

Team Cooperation and Collaboration
    Do virtual teams enhance cooperation and collaboration Many participants noted that cooperation and collaboration are greatly enhanced among virtual teams, but responsibility and dedication of virtual team members are critical moderators of that success. One participant said, It can work well, but dedication is needed. In a similar vein, virtual team members need to be ACTIVELY involved in the sessions for collaboration to take place. One participant observed that virtual team members tend to multitask, doing other things while meeting to discuss concerns, saying poorly many members do other tasks during meetings. One participant noted that collaboration without technical support is challenging.

Personal Independence
    The participants generally responded positively, saying that personal independence is greatly increased in virtual teams. One participant succinctly put it, Excellent - most definitely the best. Many of the answers were expressed in superlatives, saying that it is very strong and extremely important. There was little variety in the answers, though there were nay-sayers who said that virtual teams poorly contribute to personal independence.

Personal Motivation
    The responses given by the participants were much more nuanced here. Many observed little contribution to personal motivation from virtual teams. The reason for this was expressed by a participant, saying, Yes if youre already a self-starter. Indeed, many participants noted that virtual team members need to be effective self motivators, saying Must be very motivated and More self reliant for motivation. One noted the importance of good virtual team leadership, well, so long as the team leadermembers motivate.

Team Productivity
    Participants were asked whether virtual teams contribute to team productivity. The answers provided were generally positive Greater. Much greater, and extremely well Some very intriguing caveats were mentioned, though, Can suffer if all team members are not onboard. This sentiment is shared by many participants, saying that it depends, with good members it can be very productive. Again, the importance of good leadership was emphasized With good leaders and disciplined team.

Personal and Professional Satisfaction
    Participant responses to this item ranged from immense and huge to low and poorly, emphasizing the great deal of individual differences in virtual team effectiveness, though there were more positive responses than negative responses. There was little elaboration among the answers, with one saying that High ratings if you have the right people, so it depends and another noting that he or she felt more in control of your actions.

Team Performance
    Participants observations of team performance were varied here as well, with some positive responses (great) and some negative responses (generally lower than co-located teams). Participants noted the need for dedication, saying that performance can suffer if all team members are not onboard another said that it could work as long as no one slacks off. Again, team member characteristics play a big role in effectiveness.
Sense of Belonging

    Leadership is vital to fostering a sense of belonging among participants. One participant said that it can be better, depends on the team leader. Another said, well, so long as the team leadermembers foster it. There were many answers expressing low sense of belongingness, as there were many expressing high sense of belongingness. One participant noted that it is hard to create unity when in different locations.

Qualitative Analyses of Perceived Effectiveness of Virtual Team Environment
    Answers to open-ended questions on the perceived contribution of the virtual team environment to team identification, support and diversity, greater consistency, proactive information sharing, and access to and application of technology were analyzed based on content.

Team Identification
    Responses here were predominantly negative. One participant said that there was lesser belongingness to team. The reasons for this were expressed by some participants, like one who said Have 2 find new ways 2 foster team identification. Another shared a different reason, lower - could be on multiple teams for projects. There were a few who experienced positive identification, noting the importance of team member characteristics high with strong team, low with poor team.

Support and Diversity
    In contrast to the previous item, answers here were predominantly positive. One participant said the virtual team environment helped increase expertise within team, getting support from execs as well. While the virtual team environment defoinitely sic encourages diversity, it raises communication issues. One participant expressed this, saying that It requires a different set of communication skills. Another said that it can cause communication problems. There were negative responses as well, like it does not support it.

Greater Consistency
    Participants were polarized with regards to this aspect. Some said that the virtual team environment makes it harder to maintain consistency, while others find greater consistency through better communication. One participant noted lesser consistency due to lack of awareness opportunities while another said that most members are not consistent.

Emphasis on Achievement
    Participants predominantly found that the virtual team environment generates an emphasis on achievement. One participant said that it leads to a great sense of achievement and accomplishment. An explanation for this may be that virtual teams increases competition and, therefore, better achievement. A participant clarified this, observing more of a focus on results, less on process. The importance of the team leader is again brought up well, if the team leadermembers emphasize. There were negative responses as well, like one participant said that it was not as well (how is it recognized-who finds out).

Proactive Information Sharing
    Participants across the board emphasized how important this aspect is, saying that it is a must, to keep project going, that people have to share to make progress, that if the V team is going to work it has to be greater, and that it is essential to keep all members on same page. Indeed, there is greater perceived proactive information sharing among the participants. One said that it is greatly and more quickly done. Some participants do disagree, saying that proactive information in virtual teams  definitely not as well compared to conventional teams.

Access to and Application of Technology
    One participant underscored the importance of access to and application of technology in virtual teams High, due to nature of requirements Critical 2 providing central management of project. Responses here were predominantly positive, with the caveat that it raises the bar for technology and support. Indeed, the medium needs to be supported by IT for it to work well.

Qualitative Analyses of Perceived Relative Effectiveness of Virtual Teams to Conventional Teams
    Participants shared their perceptions of how successful virtual teams are based on their experiences, and then they shared their opinions if virtual teams are more conducive to better performance than conventional teams. There was great nuance in the perceptions of participants in this regard. Many participants believe that conventional seems better and that you have a better outcome with a conventional approach, while others took the opposing stand more successful than those in an office setting and my perception on the success of virtual teams is that the team concept is adhered to and all concepts presented are allowed to be shared without interruption.  The evidence supported is that in a virtual team each member comments fully on the project and gives the necessary feedback.  Every team member knows where each member stands at all times and reacts accordingly. Of interest here are the potential mediators of success offered by the participants. Many participants emphasized the importance of experienced members, yes if the people involved have many years of experience, usually in a second career, and better management, it depends on the team and the strength of the lead and the manager. The dead weight has to be replaced right away. In conventional teams, you can always find some kind of busy work to give the slackers. Indeed, the success of a virtual team rests on its members I have been on a very successful one, but I have seen many fail miserably.  You have to have the right people to pull it off. One participant conveys the generally shared sentiment, Virtual teams can be much more productive and cohesive if you have the right people, especially management, dedicated to those teams. Virtual teams are more successful if everyone is virtual. Ive worked in better virtual environments than I do now. Currently, I have a manager who is terrible at team building and had no experience with virtuals going into this group. Another concern is communication Virtual environments involve less spontaneous collaboration, involve a lower level of connection to the company, and facilitate less effective communication (and greater amounts of miscommunication, or inappropriate communication that would not occur as often in face-to-face teams). On a progressive note, one observes that the technology is still in its infancy so the results are inconsistent. Once it becomes mainstream, I believe that it will be very effective. Sharing information still depends on individual input.

    The participants experiences with virtual teams were varied in valence, with many sharing positive effects, like Definitely more conducive to successful team performance,  and others sharing negative effects, like I believe virtual team environments are less conducive to successful team performance outcomes because the time it takes for everyone to communicate is longer.  The conventional team settings can be a lot quicker because a structured time is allocated within face to face settings. Others proffer more nuanced insights Yes, if you have the right team members. Many people cant stay focused at home because they love to be involved in office gossip, walking the halls of the building chatting up co-workers, etc. Those of us who just want to come to work, do our job and do it well, and enjoy our familiesfriends on eveningsweekends do quite well in these environments. We are more focused on work so the virtual team environment is very conducive to success if you dont have other interruptions. Indeed, the prevailing sentiment is that it depends on the people involved not in and of itself. Depends on the individuals and how much interest they have in making things work.

Indeed, both types of teams have their advantages. In a conventional team, for example,  personal contact helps a sense of team identity and some of the best collaborative ideas happen naturally as people run in to each other in a conventional setting (even among people who are not team members, who would not have reason to meet up in virtual setting. On the other hand, virtual team environments can attract skilled team members who may otherwise not participate due to distance, family etc. and can reduce the amount of competitive stress.
The performance is higher in such situations with virtual teams.

Evaluation of Findings
Perceived Advantages of Working in a Virtual Team Environment
    The first question to be addressed is whether or not there are any perceived advantages of working in a virtual team environment. Frequency tables of answers to the questionnaire items on perceptions of the virtual team environment and qualitative analyses of answers to open-ended questions converge upon a set of perceived advantages in the virtual team environment.

    All of the closed-ended items in the questionnaire were responded to positively. Virtual team environments facilitated independence, creativity, diversity, team identity, collaboration, proactive information sharing, sense of belonging in the organization, effectiveness, and personal satisfaction. Relatively, the highest-rated factors perceived as facilitated by virtual teams were independence, proactive information sharing, creativity, and diversity. These findings were echoed in the qualitative analyses. The lowest-rated factors were sense of belonging and personal satisfaction, a finding also supported by the qualitative data. Qualitatively, reduced stress levelsa finding noted by Kiesler (2001), reduced formality, and reduced distractions were also presented as advantages of the virtual team environment.

    Independence, freedom, and flexibility were the most frequently cited benefits of working in a virtual team environment. The virtual team member is free to work on the project whenever he or she wants to, without having to waste time on transportation. Proactive information sharing was understood to be a critical component of an effective virtual team and was believed by many to be done faster and more efficiently in virtual teams. These findings replicated Kirschner  Van Bruggens (2004) findings on the importance and necessity of sharing information in virtual teams. These virtual teams also give members access to diverse people and knowledge that would otherwise be inaccessible, as DiStefano and Maznevski also discovered (2001). Brilliant people who would not be able to join a conventional team for family and personal reasons can join virtual teams, the same reasons also provided by Kerber and Buono (2004). Virtual teams connect capable individuals from distant locations, tapping far-off talent without unnecessarily raising expenses. Furthermore, virtual team members can communicate with busy experts without taking too much of their time.

    The aspects of the work environment that were not particularly advantageous in the virtual team environment were also noted. For instance, many participants mentioned a reduced sense of belongingness (though there were also few who mentioned a greater sense of belongingness as well). Some participants blamed it on the nature of the virtual team environmentit simply is not possible to build cohesive teams without personal face time, as Warkentin, Luftus, and Hightower also observed (1997). On the other hand, there was much more variety in open-ended responses on personal satisfaction. One participant who experienced high personal satisfaction noted a greater feeling of control. It seemed that while certain aspects, like independence, information sharing, and diversity can be taken for granted as advantages of the virtual team environment, it cannot be likewise predicted that virtual team environments foster belongingness and personal satisfaction. Other variables are more likely to predict these aspects of the virtual team experience. These will be discussed in the succeeding section.

Differences between the Virtual Team Environment and the Conventional Team Environment
    The virtual team environment can be said to differ from the conventional team environment (personal, face-to-face interactions) in distinct ways. This research question was addressed purely by qualitative inquiry. Some participants mentioned that it was easier to keep tabs on a virtual team because everyone knows what everyone else in the team is doing, which is notably one of the directives for effective virtual teams by Kimball  Eunice (1999). On the other hand, virtual team members must pull their weight. A conventional team member can be given simple work or grunt work, but this is rarely possible with virtual teams. Another difference is that communication in virtual teams is done without nonverbal cues hence there is a greater likelihood for miscommunication between virtual team members.

    The support needed in a virtual team is more likely to be technical support, and dysfunctional technical support can completely cripple the performance of a virtual team, whereas conventional teams can meet and make progress without any accessory material needed. Other differences are mentioned in the previous section more independence, flexibility, and diversity in virtual teams. Given these differences between virtual teams and conventional teams, can one say that virtual teams are conducive to high performance This issue is addressed in the succeeding section.

Virtual Team Environment Effectiveness
    Is the virtual team effective (i.e. is it conducive to maximized performance among team members) Converging evidence from quantitative data from the questionnaire and qualitative data from open-ended questions pointed to an answer that is far from definitive. Instead, there appeared to be various team and personal factors that can modulate how conducive a virtual team environment is to high performance, just as exposited by Kalman (2007).

    Among these respondents, there seemed to be a general qualitative preference for the conventional team environment, with others not really recognizing any difference between the two interaction models. Most of the answers provided by the participants emphasized the context of the virtual team the people, the management, and the task, as critical to the success of the virtual team. There are others that claimed that virtual environments are indeed conducive to performance in a team, but do not offer an explanation or evidence for their statements.

    The strong achievement orientation among virtual teams may also be critical to its success. Participants claimed that the competition and the emphasis on results rather than process lead to great achievement without unnecessary imposition on the virtual team members creativity and independence in the process. In order for this strength to be maximally tapped, effective leadership and management are again necessary. There are participants who did not, however, feel that the virtual team environment is more conducive to an achievement orientation, saying that they dont receive any recognition for their work. This is where leadership and management can be critical. The virtual team environment is not in itself conducive to extrinsic motivation of virtual team members. Leadership and management must recognize and reward strong performers in the team to keep morale up and to encourage competition and achievement in the virtual team.

    Certain aspects of a teams setting were not always facilitated by the virtual team environment. Communication and collaboration, while often enhanced in the virtual team environment, are also impeded by other characteristics of the virtual team environment. For example, virtual team members may spend their time multitasking, or doing other irrelevant tasks during meetings to discuss the virtual teams task. Active involvement is needed for the benefits of ease of communication and collaboration to be harnessed.

    In addition, belongingness and identification among virtual team members is not necessarily facilitated by the virtual team environment. Some blamed the distant, impersonal nature of the virtual team, while others underscored the importance of effective leadership and management of virtual teams in order for members to feel that they belong in the team and the organization and that they identify with the other members of the team. Clearly, approaches employed in conventional teambuilding are not sufficient for virtual team dynamics. There is a need for innovative teambuilding techniques in virtual teams and for judicious selection of virtual team managers and virtual team leaders in order to facilitate this vital aspect of any virtual teams environment and climate.

    Personal motivation tends to be less extrinsic in virtual teams, such that members in virtual teams have to be self-starters and self-motivators or have management and leadership that effectively motivate the members of the virtual teams. These findings on personal motivation were echoed in the findings on productivity and performance. Participants believed in the potential for heightened productivity and maximized performance in the virtual team environment but also warned that all members of the virtual team must be on board in order to reap the benefits of enhanced productivity in the virtual team. The reduction of extrinsic motivation for better performance and the precarious nature of productivity in virtual teams is clearly a major concern for the leadership and management of any virtual team. Should participants be selected for their initiative and dedication, or should the responsibility for motivation and productivity rest on management These were issues that necessitated further study of virtual team dynamics.

    Both the corpus of literature and the findings of the present study have shown that a number of factors that can influence a virtual teams effectiveness and how conducive it is to high productivity and top performance. Of the quantitative factors measured competencies, achievement, and communication, the highest-rated perceived predictor of virtual team effectiveness was communication. Naturally, any teams functionality depends on communication however, in the virtual setting more than elsewhere, it is critical that communication be crystal clear and culture-free in order to facilitate virtual team performance. Some participants have noted problems they have experienced in this regard. These findings were echoed by the literature (Roebuck, Brock,  Moodie, 2004 Monalisa et al, 2008), showing that communication is likely to be a major concern for virtual teams. In contrast, the present study shows that there were also cases where communication was not a problem for virtual teams so long as certain conditions are met.

    Another factor commonly mentioned in open-ended answers was that the team members can make or break the effectiveness of the virtual team. Virtual team members must be dedicated and self-starters in order for the virtual team to be successful, as predicted by Hertel, Konradt,  Orlikowski (2004). Slackers are more likely to make a detrimental impact in virtual teams, participants reported. A virtual team members level of experience with virtual teams also contributes to how well a virtual team environment facilitates performance and effectiveness. One participant noted that it takes a certain type of person to thrive in a virtual environment, someone who is not too compulsively sociable and who doesnt need an office-type environment to enjoy ones work.

    Management is key to the effectiveness of virtual teams, a replication of a common finding in the literature (Wardell, 1998 Topi, 2004). Virtual team management must show preparation and premeditation as virtual team managers deal with individuals from all over the world (Kerber  Buono, 2004). A good manager motivates team members while facilitating feelings of belongingness in the team. It can be a challenge to do teambuilding in a virtual environment, but it can be done. Team leaders and managers should also make sure that there is sufficient technical support for the team, as the communication lines are completely dependent on the technical support a virtual team receives. The productivity of a team also rests largely on the management skill and experience of a team leader and manager.

    Indeed, a virtual teams effectiveness and conduciveness for performance is not assured by its virtual status. Rather, by bringing together the right team members and the right leadership, the numerous advantages of the virtual team environment can be effectively tapped and maximized to boost productivity and performance in a team.

Summary
    The participants generally reported that virtual team environments are conducive to better performance. The quantitative results showed this unequivocally, while the qualitative results clarified the reasons why this may or may not be true. Emphasis on achievement, support for diversity, independence, and proactive information sharing were perceived as greater for virtual team environments, with team member dedication, team leader management skills, and technological support as potential mediators of this success. Some common advantages of the virtual team environment proffered by participants are the greater independence, ease of collaboration, ready access to experts who would otherwise be inaccessible, reduced stress, less distractions, and greater diversity of team members. While some participants believed that the conventional team setting is similar to the virtual team setting, many preferred the conventional setting because of its greater familiarity, less chance of miscommunication, more involvement, and lower technological maintenance costs. These perceptions of the virtual team environment and their differences from those of conventional team environments are discussed in the next section.


CHAPTER 5 IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS
Virtual teams are a growing alternative to conventional team settings in various industries (Gussow, 2002 Schweitzer, 2002 Webb, 2005). The present study aimed to characterize the dynamics of the virtual team environment as perceived by members of virtual teams. Quantitative and qualitative questionnaire data are triangulated to explore what participants perceive as the advantages of working in the virtual team environment, the characteristics of virtual team environments that set them apart from conventional team environments, and, ultimately, whether or not the virtual team environment is perceived as conductive to effective performance of virtual team members.

    This mixed-method study was an investigation of perceptions of the virtual team environment among virtual team members. Frequency tables and qualitative data analysis were employed to determine and subsequently flesh out the perceptions of the virtual team environment. The results presented in the previous section are discussed, dissected, and interpreted in the following sections. Conclusions on and implications to virtual team dynamics are further discussed.

Implications
    There are a number of factors that make a virtual team very attractive the independence and flexibility, the diversity, and the easy sharing of information. Another clear dynamic is that virtual teams are effective in certain contexts. The context in which a virtual team is effective here may be a task that can capitalize on independence, diversity, and ready transmission of information. Certain creative tasks may be appropriate for virtual teams, such that the team members can come up with ideas independently and contribute a diversity of ideas with ease. Another alternative could be to hybridize the team such that some of the work is done virtually, like brainstorming and conceptualization. Further investigation is needed to see which types of work most readily benefit from the virtual team environment.

    The characteristics of people play a significant role in virtual team success. Not just anyone can be placed on a virtual team. In order to maximize productivity and performance, self-motivating and dedicated individuals should be selected for virtual teams. The respondents have also underscored the importance of experience in a virtual team. Drawing from this, it becomes clear that a comprehensive briefing is necessary for members of a virtual team. The norms and styles of communication should be preset and established so that it can be followed by virtual team members, since communication styles in face-to-face and in virtual meetings are not generally the same (Warkentin, Sayeed,  Hightower, 1997). Guidelines for meetings should be established to eliminate multitasking and to establish a structure that is apparently missing from the virtual team environment. If a virtual teams success depends so critically on the people that comprise a team, then future research should focus on individual personality characteristics and demographics that are associated with virtual team success, productivity, and performance.

    The management and leadership of a virtual team is one of the most valuable components of the virtual teams dynamic. Virtual team leaders are critical in determining the climate, productivity, and performance of a virtual team, a finding that has been emphasized repeatedly in qualitative data. Virtual team leaders should thus be experienced in virtual teams, not just experienced in management in general. They should also be able to motivate and monitor their teams without micromanaging (hence taking away one of the biggest advantages of the virtual team environment independence and flexibility). Reiterating the findings of Topi (2004), a virtual team leader also determines the effectiveness of the communication channels in the virtual team. Furthermore, a good virtual team leader also determines the feelings of belongingness among members of the virtual team hence effective virtual teambuilding is also a task that the virtual team manager must perform. These proposed mediators of virtual team performance can be further studied and established using regression and structural equation modeling data.

    Some notable demographic relationships were observed in the data. There were disproportionately more males in leadership and management positions among the virtual team participants observed. Though there were a larger number of older males in the sample than older females, a relationship between age and leadership status was not observed. This leads to another important implication virtual team leaders and managers were drawn equally from all age groups. One question that bears asking is whether this gender discrepancy observed is unique to the sample presently studied. The use of purposive sampling limits the ability to generalize the current findings to virtual team dynamics in general, hence the gender-discrepant findings cannot be assumed to be a common phenomenon in virtual teams. On the other hand, the same applies to the age-equal distributions of leadership and management positions. One may posit that the technical nature of the medium biases it towards younger users who may be more adept and updated in their knowledge of the software involved. However, the distribution of leadership and management positions was not significantly skewed toward younger students either. Older participants were selected for these high-level positions as well. This is a heartening finding that virtual teams can bring down the boundaries and gaps caused by age and generational differences. However, a study with a larger, randomly obtained sample will be able to determine the veracity of these findings more definitively.

    Notably, the findings of Paul and McDaniel (2004) and Vires and Florent-Tracy (2002) on the importance of trust in collaboration and communication were not observed even once among the qualitative findings in the present study. This emphasizes the importance of qualitative research in the corpus of research in an area. It may be possible that none of the participants experienced or noted any trust issues in the virtual team environment, such that other studies on virtual teams saw an advantage borne of trust, but that it is not a critical concern on the level of personal factors and management as observed in the present study.

Recommendations
    The results of this study generally revealed that virtual teams enhance team performance. Achievement, support for diversity, independence, and proactive information sharing were emphasized by the participants as the primary advantages in virtual team settings. Knowing that the participants emphasized these factors, managers working in virtual setting might need to make sure that these variables are developed in virtual teams to ensure positive virtual team performance.

While some participants believed that the conventional team setting is similar to the virtual team setting, many preferred the conventional setting because of its greater familiarity, less chance of miscommunication, more involvement, and lower technological maintenance costs. It is recommended to make the necessary changes, if possible, to adapt to the environment that the participants described to be more conducive.

Some common advantages of the virtual team environment that were mentioned by participants are the greater independence, ease of collaboration, ready access to experts who would otherwise be inaccessible, reduced stress, less distractions, and greater diversity of team members. It is recommended to enhance these factors in the virtual team environment in order to maintain the positive perception that virtual team members currently have.

Finally, regarding future research, it is recommended to use the results of this study to be tested using quantitative studies. Even though this study used a mixed-method design, the quantitative section of this study did not test any hypothesis, it was just used to aid the data collection processes. To generalize and test the results of this study, a quantitative study might be needed. Correlations and regression analyses might be useful to examine the associations of each variable with each other. 

Conclusions
    The present study was concerned with the perceptions of virtual team environments as held by members of virtual teams, specifically including the perceived differences between virtual and conventional team environments and the perceived effectiveness of virtual team environments. Converging evidence from quantitative and qualitative data were obtained using a questionnaire with closed-ended questions and open-ended questions to maximize the ability to generalize while lending depth and dimension to the findings obtained and exploring nuances of virtual team dynamics that would otherwise have been unnoticed. Data on 95 participants were analyzed using frequency tables and cross-tabulations for quantitative data, and using qualitative data analysis for qualitative data. Quantitative analysis was concerned in how frequent an observation is, whereas qualitative analysis was concerned in the various representations and forms an answer can take, focusing on unique and well-represented codes generated from participant verbatim.

    The findings showed that virtual team environments are conducive to better performance, with emphasis on achievement, support for diversity, independence, and proactive information sharing. These findings were also perceived as greater for virtual team environments, with team member dedication, team leader management skills, and technological support as potential mediators of this success. Some common advantages of the virtual team environment proffered by participants are the greater independence, ease of proactive sharing of information, reduced stress, less distractions, and greater diversity of team members. These characteristics also distinguish virtual team dynamics from conventional team dynamics. Virtual team settings prioritize achievement, communication, and the necessity for technical support. Effective communication, personal factors, and effective management of virtual teams are essential modulators of the success of a virtual team.

    There is a great deal of potential in the virtual team. It can specifically foster diversity and independence while facilitating all the benefits of a conventional team, such as sense of belongingness, through effective leadership. Bringing the right members into the team and debriefing them have also been shown as important in maximizing the productivity and performance of a virtual team. These contextual factors are expected to predict the performance of a virtual team. This is a fruitful line of inquiry that will be critical in harnessing the fullest potential of the virtual team.