Evaluating virtuality in teams: a conceptual model

Abstract

Major parts of teams deployed in contemporary organisations to some extent possess the attributes of virtuality. In this context, at high levels of virtuality, team requirements become quite different from those of face-to-face teams. Thus, evaluating virtuality in teams is a key prerequisite for assessing its requirements and defining the applicable managerial policies. Nonetheless, the concept of virtuality in teams has remained elusive within the extant literature. To address this, this paper deploys a qualitative meta-analysis to synthesise the relevant findings drawing upon an exhaustive review of the literature. The study conceptualises the phenomenon of virtuality through proposing a conceptual framework for evaluating the level of virtuality in teams. This paper contributes to the field by offering further insight into the concept of virtuality and directs future investigations by providing the ground for validating the presented conceptual model.

Interactive Effects of Team Virtuality and Work Design on Team Functioning

“…Moreover, our review suggests that a large portion of research on virtual teams operationalizes virtuality essentially via technology use, especially in laboratory experiments (Dixon & Panteli, 2010; Gibbs et al, 2017). More specifically, the majority of these studies contrast face-to-face (i.e., traditional) with high technology use (i.e., virtual) teams, thereby reducing the concept of virtuality to a dichotomy based on the concept of technology use versus no technology use (e.g., Hosseini et al, 2015; Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2012). Given that the dichotomy approach chosen in earlier studies largely obtained negative effects on team functioning (Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2012), results obtained in these contexts (i.e., typically experimental studies with ad hoc student teams that communicated either via technology or face to face) may show different results if virtuality was operationalized (multi)dimensionally.…”

“…In a world characterized by rapid technological advancements, globalized markets, and increasingly flexible work arrangements, modern work environments are more than ever characterized by so-called virtual teams , that is, teams who collaborate toward a common goal under conditions of geographical, temporal, or organizational dispersion, so that communication and coordination are predominantly based on electronic communication media (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005). Although early research has treated virtual teams as a dichotomous concept (i.e., virtual teams vs. traditional teams; for example, Gilson, Maynard, Jones Young, Vartiainen, & Hakonen, 2015; Hosseini, Zuo, Chileshe, & Baroudi, 2015), more recent perspectives have taken a dimensional perspective in which virtuality is recognized to be composed of various dimensions. Despite a variety of different virtuality dimensions in the literature (Foster, Abbey, Callow, Zu, & Wilbon, 2015), we focus on two core dimensions, namely, technology use and geographic dispersion .…”

Invisible, therefore isolated: Comparative effects of team virtuality with task virtuality on workplace isolation and work outcomes

“…Since the focus of research has shifted from virtual teams to the virtuality in teams, greater attention has been paid to the impacts of virtuality in team settings (Dixon & Panteli, 2010;Hosseini, Zuo, Chileshe, & Baroudi, 2015). By the same token, researchers have started studying the individual and behavioral effects influenced by virtuality (Arling & Subramani, 2011;Orhan, 2014;Suh, Shin, Ahuja, & Kim, 2011).…”

Qualitative Inquiry in Management: Methodological Dilemmas and Concerns in Meta‐Analysis

“…Rather, results are aggregated in an essentially undifferentiated manner (e.g., Nienaber et al ., ). Techniques include thematic analysis (Misener et al ., ), content and/or text analyses (e.g., Belussi and Sedita, ; Frese et al ., ; Hosseini et al ., ). Many recent meta‐inquiries are analyses of digital phenomena (websites, mobile devices), both direct and analyses of website studies (e.g., Park and Gretzel, ; Bélanger and Carter, ; Chai‐Lee, ; Sigman and Boston, ; Zhong et al ., ).…”