2. ii
Abstract
Media Selection and Management for Virtual Teams
This paper examines the challenges associated with communications in virtual teams.
Specifically, the study reviews challenges of selection and utilization of communications media
for use in a virtual setting. From their early inception in the 1990s, virtual teams have undergone
and continue to experience significant changes. The major factors in those changes are
technology development in communication and the globalization of business. The advances in
communication technology combined with reduced costs of those technologies have allowed
more organizations to utilize virtual teams. Lacking face-to-face contact, virtual team leaders
must rely on computer-mediated communication to train, develop, and motivate team members.
Further, the technology a virtual team leader uses today will likely be replaced or updated during
his/her tenure. The conclusion of this paper offers a selection and management process for
communications media in virtual teams.
3. iii
Table of Contents
Abstract………………………………………………………………………….ii
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………..iii
History of Virtual Teams………………………………………………………..1
The Role of Virtual Teams in Organizations……………………………………4
Leadership and Communication Media…………………………………………9
Selection of Communication Media…………………………………………….17
Communications Media and the User Experience………………………………26
The Communications Media Decision Process…………………………………30
Summary………………………………………………………………………...36
References………………………………………………………………………38
4. 1
The History of Virtual Teams
Virtual teams are a relatively new concept in the world of business. The first virtual
teams were scientists at major universities working on government contracts who were allowed
access to the Department of Defense Arpanet (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network),
the precursor to the Internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET). Work groups from
different universities shared data and worked on their projects without ever coming into face-to-
face contact, making them the first virtual teams. These groups were peer-to-peer groups that
functioned independently with little oversight. The computer revolution of the 1980s, along with
developments in telecommunications, extended the number of organizations able to work
remotely. Communication advancements also enhanced the capabilities experienced by the initial
work groups. Email, voice mail, faxing, and file sharing became widely available. People no
longer needed to be physically present in a location to share information or collaborate. Private
and public organizations began to capitalize on the opportunity during the 1990s. Virtual work
groups became a practical and frugal way to harness collective knowledge without regard to
geography.
During the 1990s, organizations began to embrace technology as a means of sourcing
expertise. Employees now connected through electronic media allowed organizations to access
their best talent regardless of geographic location or augment their workforce without adding full
time employees or expanding office space. The new work environment drew attention and study
from academic sources. Bell and Kozlowsky (2002) defined virtual team as “groups of
geographically and/or organizationally dispersed coworkers that are assembled using a
combination of telecommunication and information technologies to accomplish and organize
5. 2
tasks” (p. 15). The new dynamic of virtual teams offered an economic advantage for those able
to use them. Western industrialized nations were first to see the benefit of the new dynamic.
The erosion of political barriers in both Eastern Europe and Asia during the 1980s and
1990s opened up large markets for both western economies and their previous adversaries. The
old barriers to open communications were gradually removed. Modernization in global
communications facilitated growth in trade and allowed organizations to source and sell
internationally. Legacy telecommunications (the telephone) provided the backbone for initial
advancements in voice mail, email, and fax- type transmission of information. Sourcing or
providing services or products without a traditional brick and motor location structure became
possible and, per Steizel and Gilabert (2013), led to “virtual organizations” (p. 462). Further
changes and advancements arrived with the development of and expanded access to a now global
internet. According to Congressional Digest (2013), prior to the late 1990s few businesses had
access to the Internet and, at relatively slow speeds through dedicated phone lines (p. 2). The
same Congressional Digest notes that in December 1999 there were 2.8 million high speed lines
(high speed being relative to that period), while in June of 2011 there were 206 million lines (p.
2). High speed Internet data transfer opened the door to a number of new communication
technologies. The rapid change in technology then demanded changes in organizational structure
to take advantage of the opportunity.
The human capacity to adapt to change, albeit exceptional, requires experience. Rapid
advancement in technology often outpaces the human competency to understand the best and
most ethical uses of that technology. The early technologies of email, voice mail, and data
transfer took time to experience, understand, and apply. The pace of technology advancement
continues to accelerate in the new millennium. Leadership studies performed prior to advent of
6. 3
virtual teams, while helpful, could not have anticipated nor addressed the challenges of those
working virtually. Early studies on virtual teams pointed out the need for a change in
management or leadership for those working remotely. The continued pace in development of
communication technology places a burden on leaders of virtual teams to become current with
new technology and learn appropriate ways to utilize it.
Over time, more organizations adopted the use of virtual teams, deploying them in
various configurations. In 2006, Hayward Andres studied a trend in virtual teams, teams made
up of sub teams. The use of small co-located groups contributing to a virtual team project adds
to the already complex issues associated with leading virtual teams. Andres (2006) noted that
many previous studies neglected addressing issues that would arise in the case of sub teams
collectively contributing to a larger team. Andre’s hypothesis that “communications media
characteristics can impact the extent of team collectivist orientation” (p. 5) supports the belief
that leadership for virtual teams is obligated to have greater competency in terms of both breadth
and depth of communication media types over those leading traditional teams. It would also
follow that as technology continues to change so will the leadership skills needed to lead virtual
teams. Adaptability and versatility in communication media become a crucial skill set for those
leading virtual teams.
In the same way that no two leaders are alike, no two team members are truly identical
either. This means that individuals will prefer different means of communication as well as
different frequency. One high-performance individual may like to communicate frequently
throughout the day using brief means of communications like texts or tweets. Another equally
high-performance individual may like to call at the end of a week and have a long dialog via
phone. This difference in style or competency in communications media creates a clear
7. 4
challenge. Leaders of virtual teams need to have not only flexibility and adaptability in their use
of various communications media; they also need to be able to adjust the frequency and use of
that media. Additionally, virtual team leaders need to ensure that the team has some level of
competency and commonality in the communications media used. According to Huang, Kahi,
and Jestice (2010), “since a virtual team relies on technology to communicate and carry out
much of its work, a leader needs to make sure that team members are trained to properly use the
technology” (p. 1099). This observation supports the theory that leadership in a virtual team
setting needs to select or source an appropriate media type for the situation and ensure that team
members as well as leadership have or can reach a competency level for the media selected.
The Role of Virtual Teams in Organizations
Today virtual teams are widely utilized by organizations around the globe. Use of a
virtual team allows an organization to source talent and knowledge from any available source.
Although defined differently by various researchers, two key factors distinguish virtual working
teams from traditional teams: spatial distance and the use of computer moderated
communications (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Huang, Kahai, & Jestice, 2010; Van De Ven &
Delbecq, 1976).
A 2002 study by Bell and Kozlowski noted that “although it was clear that virtual teams
will play an important role in shaping future organizations; we know relatively little about them”
(p. 15). Many of the studies of virtual teams at that time and currently have been done using
simulated virtual teams of students instead of actual working teams, (Andes 2006, Huang, Kahai
and Jestice 2010, Ocker et. al 2009). There are two key reasons for using students rather than
actual working teams. The first is that private industry is seldom receptive to the idea of others
monitoring communications exchanges between employees. The second is that academia offers
8. 5
an accessible and controlled environment in which to design studies. While studies using
students may be tainted due to their difference in age and maturity compared to most working
teams, it also allows studies to be designed using various configurations of members and media.
Organizations utilize non-co-located employees in different circumstances and for
different reasons. Bell and Kozlowski (2002) were among the first to distinguish different types
of virtual teams. Prior research from Bass (1990), Daft, Lengel &Trevino 919870, Hightower,
Lutfus & Merrill (1997) and others focused on the basic formation and benefits of virtual teams.
The 2002 study established a hierarchy of teams based on the complexity and interaction needed
to accomplish the task assigned to the team (Bell & Kozolwski, 2002). The basic goals of
leadership remain the same in either a co-located or virtual situation. However, the hierarchy
established by the Bell & Kozlowsky’s study supports the need for adaptability in the type of
communications media used to manage a project or a team based on complexity and frequency
of exchanges between members.
The two basic functions of leadership in any team, virtual or co-located, are: “formation
and development of the team, and performance management of that team” (Bell & Kozlowski,
2002, p. 24). The benefit of a virtual or hybrid team is that a leader has a much larger pool of
talent to choose from as he or she is not limited to those within a geographic area. The
disadvantage in a virtual team is the additional effort needed to motivate and direct the team with
limited or no face-to-face contact. The lack of face-to-face communications is one reason virtual
teams struggle or cease to work cooperatively. In an article published in 2014, Martin White
discussed challenges in the business world related to virtual teams: “Although the current
language of business speaks of collaboration, it does not speak of virtual collaboration but of
virtual teams. This is useful because not all teams work in a collaborative way with a common
9. 6
cause” (p. 31). White’s (2014) article is focused on the business community but can be applied
to all organizations. Although complicated, essentially the issues White witnessed can be
viewed as a communications-based challenge.
Discussed in the study by Bell and Kozlowski (2002) are the different media needs for
the various levels of task complexity. Their observation is that levels of task complexity require
a corresponding level of media richness to accomplish the task. For example: A simple project
where each team member has an independent task to perform could be accomplished through the
use of email and fax, whereas a more complex task may require virtual meetings via video
conferencing and groupware with real time document management. The leader of a virtual team
is tasked with understanding the level of difficulty and the resources available, then deploying
the appropriate media for the teams use and monitoring the progress making changes as needed.
Few studies have actually focused on media selection and implementation. As important as the
attributes of the communication media are the attributes of those selected to serve on a virtual
team.
A study done in 2006 by Horwitz, Bravington, and Silvis looked at the promise of virtual
teams and the factors in their success or failure. The study is a business-based observation of
how people on actual virtual teams view various aspects of the team such as means of
communication, clarity in objectives, level of management or leadership, and availability of
technology. Participants were recruited from large international companies such as Sony, Nokia,
and Psion Teklogix. This study was performed in the real world as opposed to a designed study
using students or volunteers. The study does have the limitation that the participants were
volunteers and generally happy with their virtual team. The Horwitz, Bravington, and Silvis
study noted challenges related to communications and culture. The study cites the Kirkman et al.
10. 7
(2002) study noting the initial leadership challenge of member selection for virtual teams.
“Experience suggests that virtual team members require both sound technology and interpersonal
proficiency” (Horwitz, Bravington, & Silvis, 2006, cited in Kirkman et al., 2002, p. 475).
Horwitz, Bravington, and Silvis (2006) theorized that differences in culture and experience
(communications) will lead to issues in the team. The advantages of sourcing talent regardless of
geographic locations can be negated or reduced by poor communications. During formation of
the team, leadership should consider balancing the media selection with those who will use it.
After team formation the means of communication becomes a principal leadership
concern. According to Horwitz, Bravington, and Silvis (2006), a key component of the diverse
leadership skills required for virtual teams is: “determining the best technology to facilitate
communication” (p. 475). A leader in a virtual team situation needs to evaluate the
communication technology assets available. It is likely that multiple types of communications
media will be available. The available communication technology should then be weighed
against the task, the expertise or trainability of the team, and the leader in those technology
methods. The study by Horwitz, Bravington, and Silvis further supports the need for careful
consideration in selection of media.
The study cited by Horwitz, Bravington, and Silvia (2006) and published in 2002 by
Kirkman, Rosen, Gibson, Tesluk, and McPherson reviewed five challenges of virtual teams.
This study focused on the key aspects of: building trust, creating synergy, feelings of
detachment, the means of communications, and assessment and development of team members
in virtual teams. The Kirkman et al. (2006) study is a real world review of employees working
independently in the travel industry. The teams studied were defined as “moderately and not
completely virtual” (p. 69). This is an important observation as the teams observed were likely
11. 8
early hybrid teams (both co-located and virtual). This early study relates the degree to which a
team works virtually to the communications media used and leadership skills needed to
successfully manage the team.
Kirkman et al. (2002) observed process loss stemming from lack of trust and synergy
among team members. “Training in virtual team leadership, conflict management and meetings
management is particularly valuable for overcoming process loss” (p. 70). The need cited for
leadership training specific to virtual teams supports the observation of this paper that choosing
and managing the communications media for a virtual team requires thought and deliberation
prior to starting a project. Monitoring and managing communications once a project has started
is equally important to ferment cooperation and collaboration among the group. One solution
suggested for overcoming the challenge of building trust in virtual teams is: “establishing norms
around communications patterns” (Kirkman et al., 2002, p. 70). Researchers in the Kirkman
study noted the importance of choosing appropriate communications media and then managing
the use of that media when leading a virtual team. That observation supports having some type of
decision matrix and applying that matrix when selecting media for a virtual team project.
The 2006 study noted earlier by Hayward Andres studied the combined effect of group
structure and communications media for both virtual and co-located teams. Andre’s observation
is that previous studies of virtual teams did not address problems that would arise when a virtual
team was made up of smaller sub groups, members of which may be co-located (Andres, 2006).
What Andres observed is that communications decisions need to take in to consideration both the
complexity of the team and the complexity of the project. This study was conducted using a
hypothetical situation and university students. Andres noted the limitations of the study due to
the contrived setting and use of students but also noted that the student base represented a variety
12. 9
of backgrounds and cultures. “This study suggests that communication media characteristics can
impact the extent of team collectivist orientation that subsequently impacts the team-wide
propensity to seek and share task related information” (p. 5). Andres’ hypothesis was that the
combined impact of the team structure along with the communications media used would affect
team productivity. The model depicted in the study showed communications media affecting
team collectivist orientation which in turn affected information exchange and led to better
productivity and group process satisfaction. While the study was not real world, it is significant
due to the cultural diversity of those participating and the different types of communications used
by the teams to manage the project.
Leadership and Communications Media
A study performed by Huang, Kahai, and Jestice (2010) looked at the effect of varying
levels of media richness in combination with varied leadership styles on virtual teams. The study
focused on two specific factors within the virtual teams: task cohesion and cooperative climate.
Huang, Kahai, and Jestice (2010) noted that virtual teams can improve productivity and reduce
operational costs and by employing the most appropriate human resources for the task. However,
productivity gains from virtual teams are not guaranteed because the lack of physical co-location
and the use of lean media create challenges for a virtual team to coordinate its work, get and stay
motivated, create commitment, and develop trust (p. 1098).
The researchers go on to say that the challenges can be overcome with proper facilitation
by a team’s leader. This is significant as it supports the need for varied types of media and
varied use of that media and leadership style when leading a team that is separated by distance as
well as cultures.
13. 10
In addition to the level of spatial separation, media richness plays a role in defining the
challenges faced by a leader of a virtual team (Huang, Kahai, & Jestice, 2010). To gain task
cohesion and cooperative climate a leader must deploy the desired or available communications
technology in balance with the appropriate leadership style. For example, a complex task with
only limited or lean media available would suggest the use of transformational leadership (Bass,
1990) as a means of establishing self-efficacy and thus cooperative climate. In the case of a less
complex task with rich media as a means of communication the goal would be to keep the team
on track and a more transactional leadership (Bass 1990) style may be preferable. Bass (1985)
defined transactional leadership as an exchange activity that leaders execute to motivate
subordinates in order to achieve their tasks by giving out reward or punishment corresponding
with their performance. Transactional leadership focuses on task completion, whereas
transformational leadership looks into the creativity and satisfaction of subordinates throughout
the organization.
The 2010 study (Huang et al., 2010) is limited by the use of college students and not
actual teams. However the study did utilize 485 students with varied ethnic backgrounds giving
the study the benefit of cross cultural participation. The study presented evidence for the use of
adaptive forms of leadership in combination with communications media available and the level
of task challenge. This adds another dimension to consider before starting a project with a
virtual team. It also directly supports the need for a greater understanding of communications
technology and the ability to pair the technology with the task to be performed.
A 2007 article by Staples and Webster reported on a study of six actual working teams.
Staples and Webster studied two virtual teams, two hybrid teams and two co-located teams. The
authors used social cognitive theory as a foundation to study the influences of environmental
14. 11
factors on team members’ behaviors. The researchers found a direct relationship between the
effectiveness of team members and the environment created by other team members, leaders, and
the organization itself through its support and culture.
Organizational support for the team is essential prior to and during a project. Staples and
Webster (2007) asserted that:
even if a person’s fellow team members model how to collaborate effectively with
information technology, if the organization does not provide appropriate technology
resources to the individual, the employee might not feel that he or she will be able to
electronically collaborate as well as fellow team members. (p. 63)
Also revealed in the research by Staples and Webster (2007) was the importance of the
coaching and training provided by leaders within the organization. The study by Staples and
Webster demonstrated that leadership requirements for the three types of teams studied varied
between the types of teams. The more virtual or dispersed the team the greater the need for self-
efficacy. According to Bandura self-efficacy means: “the extent or strength of one's belief in
one's own ability to complete tasks and reach goals” (Bandura A. 1977 p 191). Leaders of
virtual teams then need to have the flexibility and knowledge to evaluate the team and deploy or
source the proper communications media and training to support their teams.
In 2009, Ocker, Huang, Fich, and Hiltz researched the challenges of partially distributed
teams or PTDs. Ocker et al. (2009) define PDTs as having “a mix of physically collocated and
distant team members” (p. 274). The study was designed to determine how the sub groups of
physically co-located people communicated among themselves and with the other sub groups
that made up the actual virtual team. The study examined twelve student teams at three
campuses of a university. This study agrees with previous studies (Bell & Kozlowski 2002;
15. 12
Gibson & Cohen 2003; Hightower et.al 1997) in the assessment that leaders of virtual teams face
additional challenges created by lack of presence, the use of technology in communications, and
the need to ensure a consistent process.
Beyond the workings of traditional virtual teams Ocker, Huang, Fich, and Hiltz (2009)
observed what they defined as “collocation blindness” when observing the PDTs in their study.
The 2009 study was designed using participants from a central campus and participants from two
satellite campus locations. Leadership positions for the team were initially designated. Eight
leaders were located at the main campus and four from satellite campuses. Ocker, Huang, Fich,
and Hiltz noted that “subgroups formed among the collocated members of teams specific to their
location. These subgroups adopted ‘in-group behaviors,’ favoring communications with those
collocated” (p. 278). Additionally, although leaders had been initially designated, five of the
groups experienced emergent leaders. That is to say that a single team member emerged to take
unofficial leadership of the team. Teams with leaders designated from the satellite locations
were highly likely to experience emergent leaders on their teams, while the teams with leaders
designated at the main campus were unlikely to experience emergent leaders (p. 284). Ocker,
Huang, Fich, and Hiltz noted that the main campus “enjoys more prestige and resources
compared to the branch campuses and students are well aware of these differences” (p. 284).
The satellite groups likely experienced a lower level of self-efficacy. They substituted for the
lack of strong leadership by establishing their own organization structure on a local level. As the
local group established itself, a team member became the informal leader. This reflects the ease
at which an “us vs them” culture can arise in a situation. With better communications the need
for locally driven feelings of belonging would have been reduced or eliminated. Finally, while
this study was performed using students, the premise and structure of the study reflected the real
16. 13
world challenge of a large company with a corporate office and satellite branches or offices.
Virtual leadership for partially distributed teams faced the additional challenge from the separate
identities of the sub groups and the possible relationship issues that can form between the groups.
Leadership in this situation would need to contribute additional thought and effort in the
management of group communication.
In 2007, the Academy of Management Journal published the results of a study by
Malhotra, Majchrzak, and Rosen. The article included conclusions from seven years of
interviews with virtual team leaders, members, and sponsors (Malhotra, Majchzak, & Rosen
2007). The research team developed six key leadership practices utilized by successful leaders
of virtual teams; Establish and maintain trust through the use of communication technology,
ensure diversity in the team is understood, appreciated and leveraged, Manage virtual work-cycle
meetings, monitor team progress through the use of technology, enhance external visibility of the
team and its members and ensure individuals benefit from participating in virtual teams.
Many of the teams that Malhotra, Majchrzak, and Rosen (2007) studied “struggled
initially because they lacked a common set of procedures or way of doing things. In the absence
of communications norms, team members resorted to using the practices prevalent in their local
settings” (p. 62). Lacking a common means of communicating that the entire team felt
competent using, team members revert to a means and frequency of communications they were
comfortable using. This further eroded the clarity of the communications cycle within the
project and resulted in lost time as well as poor performance which further eroded the
cooperation between and among team members. Malhotra, Majchrzak, and Rosen further
identified “etiquette for electronic communications” (p. 62) as another area of concern. The
study suggested that leaders describe for the team how communications should be used. This
17. 14
again points to the need for conscious choice of the media to use at various points in the project
and the need for close monitoring of the frequency and content of communications between and
among team members.
Malhotra, Majchrzak, and Rosen (2007) also noted that “successful virtual team leaders
diligently monitor the progress in the use of information technology to support the team process”
(p. 63). The 2007 study noted that virtual teams “rarely began with their teams having all the
technologies in place from the onset” (p. 63). That observation from numerous interviews points
to a common lack of communications planning before beginning a project. The study by
Malhotra, Majchrzak, and Rosen additionally suggested that “team leaders allow for flexibility in
the usage of information technology tools as the needs of the team evolve and the technology
itself evolves” (p. 63). This need for flexibility indicates that, in addition to careful consideration
of communications before the project begins, leadership needs to monitor and make adjustments
as the project matures.
A qualitative study gaging the viability of the six key leadership practices identified in
the study by Malhotra, Majchrzak, and Rosen (2007) was performed in 2011 by Mary Jo Hirchy.
Hirchy conducted an in-depth interview with an “exemplary” current leader of virtual teams in
Christian higher education. The Hirchy study (2011) is relevant as it supports the earlier study
by Malhotra, Majchrzak, and Rosen (2007) and their six key leadership practices which in turn
support the need for careful selection of media in a virtual team setting.
In addition to the challenges faced by leadership, few team members are likely to have
received any type of structured training for interacting in virtual teams. In their 2013 article,
Gilson, Maynard, and Bergiel note: “Although the topic of virtual teams has created interest
within the academic and practitioner literature, there is a lack of research on how to teach or train
18. 15
individuals to be effective members of such teams” (p. 412). To date, studies on training specific
to the communications process in a virtual setting has been difficult to find.
The Gilson et al. (2013) study is limited because, although the study used modern
communications media, the study was conducted using students instead of a real working
environment. However, the design of the experiment using team members from universities
separated by culture as well as distance and diversity of participants provides valid research on
the team members’ likes and dislikes in a virtual situation. One of the key complaints noted by
participants in the study was the perceived lack of participation by other team members. Specific
to this feeling of lack of participation was the level to which the media used facilitated
relationships between the team members. Gibson, Maynard, and Bergiel noted that “presence is
important for team success” (p. 419). Without the benefit of face-to-face communications, team
members can feel distanced from the other members as well as leadership.
From the literature reviewed thus far it is evident that leaders of virtual teams face
significant obstacles in successful team management. Leaders of virtual teams are denied the
communications benefits of face-to-face communications. “As a consequence of the lack of
face-to-face contact and geographical dispersion, as well as the often asynchronous nature of
communication it is more difficult for team leaders to perform traditional hierarchical leadership
behaviors such as motivating members and managing team dynamics” (Hoch & Kozlowski,
2012, p. 1). The means, frequency, and style of communications become more crucial to team
success in a virtual situation. Leaders in a virtual situation are faced with a tech vs. touch trade-
off in managing their teams. If computer- mediated communication is to supplant face-to-face
communications, careful consideration must be given to the type of media considered. The
19. 16
choices in media and use of that media will affect the performance and success or failure of the
team.
Successful leaders of all teams seek to instill empowerment and self-efficacy in the
members of their team. In the case of virtual teams, empowerment and self-efficacy have
increased importance. According to Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, and Gibson (2004),
“Empowerment in a virtual team may function as a substitute for many of the leadership
functions that are normally executed by a team leader who is physically present and interacting
face to face with a team”(p. 180). In their research of process feedback on outcomes for virtual
teams, Geister, Konradt, and Hertel (2006), suggested that motivational, task-related, and
relational feedback are related to motivation and self-efficacy in virtual teams. However, leaders
of virtual teams do not have the physical presence that allows them to observe their term
members and provide appropriate feedback. Conversely, members of a team do not have easy
access to other team members or leadership nor the ability to visually read their dispositions
possibly making them less likely to initiate communications. Further complicating the situation
is that advancements in communications media mean that different team members are likely to
have varying levels of competency with different types of media.
20. 17
Selection of Communication Media
This evolution of communications media spans several decades and continues today.
Some people are early adopters while others are followers and some even cling to the older tried
and true methods of communicating. While several basic forms of communication are common
and widely used, individual preferences and competency for the different types of
communications platforms vary widely. If computer-mediated communication needs to
substitute at least to some degree for the lack of face-to-face contact, it follows that the choice of
communication media will affect team performance on multiple levels. According to Andres
(2006): “communication media characteristics (high or low social presence) can impact the
extent of team collectivist orientation that subsequently impacts the team wide propensity to seek
and share task related information across team members” (p. 5). What Andres observed is that
the choice of communication medium can influence, either positively or negatively, a team’s
ability to function as a group that openly shares information. Information retained by one person
or group during a project reduces or negates the value of that information. Information that
becomes isolated in a silo loses value. Without an open sharing of information the group’s
cohesion and self-efficacy will be affected, in turn reducing performance. Complex messages can
be particularly challenging and may require multiple forms of media in order to be encoded, sent,
and decoded clearly. Complexity of message is a key factor in media selection.
The consideration of task complexity is an important factor to consider in choosing what
types of communications media to deploy. Media Richness Theory developed by Daft and
Lengel (1987) ranks different types of communication media along a line which runs from lean
media like email to rich media like face-to-face communication. Daft and Lengel then relate the
media types to the type of task being performed. Lean media is associated with simple tasks
21. 18
such as exchange of basic information while rich media is associated with more complex tasks
such as brainstorming. Media Richness Theory or MRT directly relates complexity in task to
complexity in communications and supports the need for a formal review of communications
media prior to starting project. While the message of the Daft and Lengal study is clear, the
limited number of communication media choices at the time of the study limited that study.
More recent studies support the work by Daft and Lengel (1987). According to Bell and
Kozlowski (2002), “Although the specific communications technology a virtual team deploys
depends on some extent to an organization’s resources, the choice should be directed by the
nature of the task the team is performing” (p. 24). Since organizations are more likely to employ
a virtual team for more complex projects, it is likely a leader in a virtual situation will need to
evaluate multiple types of media. In a case where an organization is not currently using a
method of communication being considered for use, it is incumbent on leadership to justify and
acquire additional communication resources. Assembling the best talent may be a waste of
organizational resources if the group is not given the tools to successfully complete the task.
As noted earlier, the major benefit of virtual team utilization is that it allows a group of
people who are geographically dispersed to leverage collective knowledge to accomplish a
project or task. This is an economic benefit to the organization. The media used will have to
supplant the lack of face-to-face communications that co-located teams enjoy. Simply using a
media that has been used in the past or one that is new and attractive may not achieve the desired
team culture. Establishing a collectivist orientation among those without previous experience
with each other is possibly the most important and most difficult step in organizing a virtual
team. In his observation of virtual teams engaged in software development Anders (2006) noted:
“These issues suggest that the communication medium utilized to support the software
22. 19
development activity must adequately facilitate a team collectivist orientation” (p. 5). To
collectively participate, members of a team will need a comfort level communicating laterally to
their peers as well as with leadership. It follows that to achieve a desired level of empowerment
and socio-emotional bonding, leaders of virtual teams need to understand and deploy
communications technology commensurate with the team members’ ability and the level of task
difficulty faced by the team at various points in the project. The Andres study suggested that
several decisions need to be made when choosing communications media. Consideration needs
to be given to each event or step in the lifecycle of the project.
Complex projects or tasks should be broken down into incremental tasks or sub-projects.
Based on previous observations, leaders must decide what types of communication are needed
for each step or task during various phases in the project. The level of communications
technology a leader should employ is driven by two key factors: (a) team competency in
different communications media; and (b) task complexity or difficulty for that phase of the
project. Bell and Kozlowski (2002) noted the relationship between task difficulty and team
structure: “We believe that task complexity has critical implications for the structure and
processes of virtual teams” (p. 18). Bell and Kozlowski related more complex tasks to the need
for more robust communications media.
Van de Ven, Delbeck, and Koenig (1976) outlined four levels of task flow difficulty:
independent work flow, sequential work flow, reciprocal work flow and team or complex work
flow (p. 334). The Van de Ven, Delbeck, and Koenig model was adopted by Bell and Kozlowski
(2002) for their study of virtual teams. Independent or pooled task environments allow team
members to function independently of one another. The collective product is assembled or
combined into a finished without the need for team members to interact on an ongoing basis.
23. 20
This is the least interdependent form of task management and in most cases the least complex
type of task. To illustrate task complexity a simplified model is provided in the following pages.
Independent or pooled task environments allow team member to function independently
of one another. The collective product is assembled or combined into a finished without the
need for team members to interact on an ongoing basis. This is the least interdependent form of
task management and in most cases the least complex type of task
Figure 1. Bell and Kozlowski’s (2002) adaptation of Van de Ven, Delbeck, and Koenig’s 1976
complexity model.
In sequential tasks, team member work flows in a unidirectional manner. In other words
work flows in one direction. Team members are dependent on those directly above and below
them on the work flow chain. This sequential task model requires more interdependence and is
24. 21
generally more complex than independent or pooled task models. Figure 2 provides a simplified
look of the sequential task model.
Figure 2. The sequential task model requires more interdependence than independent or pooled
task models.
In a reciprocal work flow environment team members are more dependent on one another
as work flows in a back and forth manner. This format requires more interdependency between
members than either independent or sequential task models and is more complex. Figure 3
shows the interdependency between team members.
25. 22
Figure 3. The reciprocal format requires more interdependency between members than either
independent or sequential task models and is more complex.
Intensive work flow environments are the most complex and require a great deal of
interdependency between team members. Many of today’s virtual teams are intensive and
require problem solving and creative activities. Many if not most of today’s virtual team projects
will be intensive and require coordinated teamwork. Figure 4 shows the importance of team
member interdependency with complex tasks.
Figure 4. Intensive work flow environments are the most complex and require the most
interdependency between team members.
26. 23
Communication Complexity and Communication Media
Refining and furthering Media Richness Theory (MRT) is the work by Dennis, Fuller,
and Valacich (2008) outlining a new concept: Media Synchronicity Theory or MST. The 2008
study “re-conceptualizes task as the set of communication processes needed to generate shared
understanding” (p. 576). Dennis, Fuller, and Valacich (2008) break task communications into
two distinct functions of conveyance and convergence. The 2008 study defines conveyance as
“being the transmission of information and convergence as being the group agreement on what is
meant by the information shared” (p. 576). The refined theory of MST means that each step in a
set of tasks should be reviewed for the communications media needed to complete that specific
task. Although a task may itself be complex, it may be that the communications media needed to
accomplish that task will require only conveyance of information and be better performed by
asynchronous or lean media. Other tasks which require conveyance along with convergence will
either require more robust media or multiple types of media. It is then important to balance the
level of task communications complexity along with team competency in media and with the
available options. It is important to review the project and look at available options for
communication media, rather than relying solely on what has worked in the past.
In addition to communications complexity, leaders must consider the continued evolution
of communications media and the preferences and/or competencies of the team members.
Huang, Kahai, and Jestice (2010) share their observation: “Virtual team leaders should pay
attention to the level of media richness in their team” (p. 1108). Leaders need to ensure that the
team has both access to and a reasonable level of competency in the communications media
implemented by the organization. In their study of virtual teams, Malhotra, Majchrzak, and
Rosen (2007) noted that “Several of the teams we studied struggled initially because they lacked
27. 24
a common set of procedures or way of doing things. In the absence of communications norms,
team members resorted to using the practices present in their local settings” (p. 62). Malhotra,
Majchrzak, and Rosen observed that when team members lacked a collective expertise in the
communications media allocated to them, they simply communicated in a frequency and
technique they were comfortable with. The exchange of information among the team members
declined as did the performance of the team. Team members need to consciously accept both the
method and protocol established for communication.
Establishing communication competency in a virtual team requires implementing an
accepted frequency of communications in addition to common media. A study of virtual teams
by Hoch and Kozlowski (2012) revealed that “an important function of leadership is to create
structures and routines that substitute for direct leadership influence and regulate team behavior”
(p. 3). Team leaders and members in a co-located setting are accessible to one another on an as
needed basis allowing team members to influence the frequency and style of communication.
Being co-located also helps team leaders observe team morale and goodwill toward one another
and the leadership of the team. Whether in a co-located or virtual environment, individual
communications needs vary. Some team members will establish a routine of touching base
frequently with their leader and peers while others will communicate only as required. This also
would suggest that, without physical presence, leaders may miss cues for team morale and self-
efficacy. “Virtual team leaders have to sense when electronic silence means acquiescence rather
than inattention” (Malhotra, Majchrzak, & Rosen, 2007, p. 61). What Malhotra, Majchrzak, and
Rosen observed is that, while silence by some team members simply means they have nothing to
add at that time, silence by others may mean they are disconnected from the project. To achieve
a level of self-efficacy and contribute at their apex of productivity it is important that virtual
28. 25
team members are comfortable with both the frequency and the media used for communications.
It is equally important that those leading virtual teams understand when team members may be
struggling with content, frequency, or means of communication.
As noted in several research studies, more robust types of media may actually hinder
team members at various points in the process. Hightower, Ross, Lutfus, and Merrill, in an early
study conducted in 1997, found that “asynchronous technologies offer certain advantages for
groups exchanging information and may allow group members to concentrate on message
content” (p. 976). What the Hightower et al. (1997) study points out is that complex information
may take time to decode and digest. Complex information may be best shared through a posting
or email. This gives team members flexibility to study and digest the information. Conversely, it
may be that complex information requires explanation during dissemination requiring some type
of video conferencing or other way of explaining the data. Input from the team may be
important in the decision process as each member will judge the effectiveness of the media by
their experience with the data along with the media.
29. 26
Communications Media and the User Experience
Careful consideration must be given to the team members and their proficiency with or
flexibility to learn the means of communication the team will employ. Dennis, Fuller, and
Valacich (2008) cite Carlson and Zmud’s (1999) channel expansion theory: “arguing that the
perceived richness of a medium depends not only on its characteristics but also on the users
experience using it” (p. 578). In the study by Carlson and Zmud, media richness is related to the
perception of that richness by the media users. The perception of richness is driven by three key
experiences: (a) experience with the media itself; (b) experience with the other users; and (c)
learning experience with the topic being discussed. The study by Carlson and Zmud is supported
by a 2013 study by Fernandez, Sallan, and Enache. According to Fernandez, Sallan, and Enache
(2013), “The Channel Expansion Theory combines elements of media richness theory with
certain characteristics of influence and social presence theories” (p. 32). This is a feedback loop
of positive experience being shared leading to more use by others and hence more positive
experience. The 2013 Fernandez et al. study points out that Carlson and Zmud (1999) applied
their theory only to the media present at the time; however, the theory is still sound considering
modern communication media and human behavior.
A study based on several models of communication theory including Channel Expansion
Theory was performed in 2003 at the University of Wisconsin (Timmerman, 2002). The study
identified six factors for consideration of media selection. This study focused on media for the
purpose of managing through change in an organization. Timmerman’s six factors to consider
for selection include; source factors (sender related factors), organizational factors (structural and
social factors in an organization) , media factors (richness of media), task/message factors
30. 27
(complexity of the message/task), receiver factors (who and how the message will be received)
and strategic factors (the degree to which influence needs to accompany a message)
This study identifies the social, mechanical, and psychological influences faced by those
encoding and sending messages in a modern organization. The study is limited in its relevance
because its supporting studies were performed in the mid-1990s before many of today’s
communication media were developed. The study is highly relevant however because it
highlights the physiological and physical factors involved in selection and use of media
regardless of the chronological separation in its writing and today’s media options. The study
confirms previous concepts of communication in more modern, albeit not current,
communications media.
Another follow-up study examining the scope of Channel Expansion Theory was
conducted in 2008. Scott D’Urso and Stephen Rains conducted a study using graduate students
at the University of Arizona to relate and apply Channel Expansion Theory using modern
communications media. The study supports Carlson and Zmud’s (1999) theory but shows bias in
the aspect of what those participating considered media richness. “The findings offer evidence
to suggest that the richness of a medium is not inherently fixed and that perceptions of richness
may be shaped by interpersonal factors, such as one’s relevant experiences” (p. 501). The study
at the University of Arizona shows that to some extent media richness perception is the result of
past use and more specifically successful past use. Additionally social influence or the opinion
of others also plays a factor in the perception of media richness. That fact reinforces the need to
consider the team and leadership members in the media selection process. It would also suggest
that leaders monitor and solicit feedback from those using the communications media during the
31. 28
project. It is imperative that those using the media for a project have competency and confidence
in its use.
The next consideration once media has been determined is the frequency of
communications to and among the team members. We know from the previous observations that
communications used in a virtual environment will need to establish self-efficacy and substitute
for direct leadership (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2012; Huang, Kahai, & Jestice, 2010; Kirkman,
Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004). While the media in and of itself is important, so too is how it is
utilized. A virtual team leader should establish a formal schedule for communications including
etiquette. “Most successful virtual team leaders establish a synchronous as well as an
asynchronous collaboration rhythm” (Malhotra, Majchrzak, & Rosen, 2007, p. 64). Having a
basic expectation of minimal communication frequency among the team is important. Once the
basics are established it should be expected that members will establish their own rate or rhythm
of communication with leadership and among peers. Each member of the team will have a
different need for frequency and the affirmation gained through communication. This is
especially true for team member communication with leadership. Some team members will have
a limited need for affirmation from leadership while others will require more frequent avowal of
their efforts from both peers and leadership.
While focus of the writing is establishing a formal media selection process, it is worth
noting that culture needs to play a role in that process. China, for example bans some of the
communications media commonly used in the west. Additionally it is worth noting that etiquette
and respect for the cultural norms of others is important in virtual communications and could
impact the frequency or cadence of communication. In his article published in 2014, Martin
White identified three dimensions or layers present in international virtual teams: national and
32. 29
organizational cultures (including language), time (time zone), and location. It is essential to
understand the needs, norms, and acceptable communications of the various cultures of those
who will be included in the team. For example, some cultures frown on individual praise in
favor of team success, while in other cultures it may be important to formally recognize
individuals for their contributions.
The research reviewed shows the additional difficulties in leading a virtual team over
those of leading a co-located team. The key challenge is the communications cycle and the
ability to substitute for lack of face-to-face contact while successfully managing the project and
process. For thousands of years, human beings have communicated visually and kinesthetically.
Language followed visual communications. This means that we are still wired to receive
information through visual and voice inflection clues. During co-located exchanges leaders are
able to adsorb information from body language, eye contact, and voice inflection; these
communication methods are only partially if at all present in computer-mediated
communications.
The modern communications cycle consists of encoding a thought, sending the message
through some sort of media or verbally, and having the recipient accurately decode the message.
With human presence we can gauge if our message is being received correctly. Conversely, we
are also able to gauge the meaning of messages being sent by the tone, expression, and body
language of those sending the message. The mode, means, and frequency of communications
adopted for use in a virtual team will be the key element in the success or failure of that team.
Organizations commonly outline a project, reflect on and source the talent they need,
discuss the process, and begin a project with little or no thought to the method of communication
the team will use. The decision process on media should not add a great deal of time to the
33. 30
planning process of a project. It should be integrated into the initial planning, reviewed during
the project, and add only minimal time. Although it will still add time to the process, poor
communications will likely negate the advantage of being able to source talent without regard to
geography. Additionally, poor communications during a project will waste valuable time. In a
sense, the time spent planning can be considered an investment in the success of the process or
project.
The Communications Media Decision Process
Created with the understanding that media will need to supplant to some degree the lack
of face-to-face communications during a project, the following decision process is suggested
when choosing media to be used in a virtual setting. The project needs to be clearly outlined and
broken down into manageable tasks or steps. Each step should be considered its own incremental
project. Conceptualizing a project as a cycle of events with each event being its own process or
cycle it can be visually represented as shown in Figure 5.
34. 31
Figure 5. The communications media decision process needs to be broken down into
manageable tasks or steps.
Each step should be reviewed and its communications needs assessed. Each step should
also be looked at as its own possible cycle of communication. It is important to include media
that will build team trust and enable convergence (Andres, 2006; Denis, Fuller, & Valacich,
2008; Malhotra, Majchrzak, & Rosen, 2007; Rhoads, 2010).
As noted above, Media Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel, 1987) states that as task
complexity moves along the line from less complex to more complex the choice of media will
move along a corresponding line from lean to robust. Linking the model of interdependency
35. 32
developed by Van de Ven, Delbeck and Koenig (1976) to MRT we can design a visual
representation to utilize when considering the individual steps within the project and the type of
media needed. (See Figure 6.)
Figure 6. Media choice is based on the model of interdependency developed by Van de Ven,
Delbeck and Koenig (1976).
The work by Dennis, Fuller, and Valacich (2008) further refines MRT and relates the
media richness needed to the communications complexity, not simply the task complexity
(MST). When contemplating the continuum line above it is important to remember to consider
the communications complexity needed for the task and not simply the task itself. Many tasks
may be best addressed by a multi-layer communications approach. This means that each step
may require an asynchronous as well as a synchronous means of communication. For example, a
team needs to gather and share complex data, then design a solution, product, or device. In this
case the team could utilize a less robust media to post, exchange, and store the information
allowing review and contemplation. The team would then use a more robust and active means of
communication to brainstorm and gain convergence on the meaning of the information and the
36. 33
actions needed. Finally, it is highly recommended that someone in the group check for
understanding and clarity among the members for the messages being sent; this is especially
important when cross cultural teams are assembled. That process may need to be repeated until
the team reaches convergence. (See Figure 7.) Once task communications complexity for each
step in the project has been established a virtual team leader will need to consider what
communications resources are available and which of those resources will be best utilized by her
or his team members to achieve success.
Figure 7. Each step in virtual team communications may require an asynchronous as well as a
synchronous means of communication.
37. 34
As mentioned earlier in discussion of the study done by D’Urso and Rains (2008), one
way team members will judge a media is by successful use of that type of media previously,
currently, or by word of mouth from others. In light of that fact it is important to have an idea of
what success looks like in the scope of the project and in the steps in the project. Pointing out
successful steps using the media may have a positive effect on the acceptance of the media as
well as team morale. Keep individual success factors in mind as well as team success factors. In
the article Critical Success Factors in Projects by Muller and Jugdev (2012), the researchers cite
previous work by Germuden which discussed: “two types of project success – term performance
(efficiency and effectiveness) and personal success (satisfaction and learning)” (p. 763).
Ensuring that team members have a positive experience with the media being used will help
ensure quality of the work and success of the project. Conversely, and equally important, is
understanding when there is an issue and openly resolving the issue before moving on.
The planning and selection of media should be considered an investment in the success of
a project. No organization has unlimited resources and some have very small budgets for
communication media. However, many types of communications media can be found at low or
no cost to the organization. Basic email is available at no cost through Microsoft, Google, or
others. Video conferencing is also available at little to no cost through a variety of online
programs. This means that even the smallest organization has affordable options for
communication media.
As mentioned previously the choice of communications media is a task too often
neglected by leadership in virtual teams. With all the data shared, media selection may seem like
a challenging task; however, it really only requires a conscious attention to the key elements
38. 35
outlined earlier. With a small investment in time before launching a project leadership can
increase the likelihood of success. Virtual team leaders are encouraged to:
1. Review the project.
o Break the task down into the needed steps; understand the communications
complexity of each step;
2. Involve all the stakeholders.
o Solicit feedback and indicators of success for the project.
3. Review the team members.
o Understand the media competency or coach ability in media.
o Understand the culture/time zones/ intrinsic needs.
4. Review the media to be used.
o Ask for what is needed, review the project steps and communications needs; find
low or no cost alternatives for media not currently available.
5. Try any new or web conferencing communications media selected.
o Solicit first impressions of the media; re-try the media with and for new members
that join the team.
6. Establish a communications routine.
o Expect each team member to find his or her own communications rhythm.
7. Monitor “side channel” communications.
o Establish common communications protocols.
8. Remain flexible during the project.
o Try to meet the frequency and media needs of the team members.
o Review and adapt as needed.
39. 36
The goal of this process is to help ensure the success of a project using a virtual team.
Initially it may add time to the process. That time should be considered an investment in the
success of the project no different than any other financial outlay. In time, this process will
move from a conscious activity to an unconscious competency and add very little time to the
project.
Summary – Media Selection and Management of Virtual Teams
Since the 1990s, organizations have embraced technology as a means of sourcing
expertise and support from a growing and global base of knowledge. The new virtual work
dynamic provides potential advantages in productivity and profitability. However, the potential
gains from technology may be offset and lost due to poor communications.
Definitions vary but two key factors distinguish virtual working teams from traditional
teams: spatial distance and the use of computer-moderated communications (Bell & Kozlowski,
2002; Huang, Kahai, & Jestice, 2010; Van De Ven & Delbecq, 1976). The computer moderated
communications must compensate for the separation of the members or the team may suffer.
Although virtual teams have been in existence for 20+ years and media technology itself
has kept pace with the increased use of virtual teams, the same cannot be said of media selection
and leadership of virtual teams. This lack of coordination of media selection, leader training, and
virtual team dynamics has the potential to undo any potential gains associated with the use of
virtual teams. Task complexity, organization support, and incorporating media selection in team
strategic design all play a strong role in the success (or failure) of a virtual team.
Using a conscious and deliberate decision process for media selection will require
additional time and resources on the front end of a project. The time and resources spent should
be considered an investment with high potential payback. Once a decision process is adopted
40. 37
and utilized, that process will become an unconscious competency, reducing the time needed.
The payback will be a higher success rate, happy team members and a more successful
organization.
41. 38
References
Access to telecommunications technology: Bridging the digital divide in the United States.
Congressional Digest (2013). , 92(4), 2-5
Andres, H. P. (2006). The impact of communication medium on virtual team group
process. Information Resources Management Journal, 19(2), 1-17
ARPANET. (n.d.). In Wikipedia online. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/arpanet
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191-215
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics (0090-2616), 18(3), 19.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press
Bell, B., & Kozlowski, S. (2002, March). A typology of virtual teams. Group & Organization
Management; 27(1), 14-50.
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and
manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 354-
366.
D'Urso, S. C., & Rains, S. A. (2008). Examining the scope of channel expansion. Management
Communication Quarterly, 21(4), 486.
Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of
media richness perceptions. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 153-170.
Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication
processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575-600.
42. 39
Fernandez, V., Simo, P., Sallan, J. M., & Enache, M. (2013). Evolution of online discussion
forum richness according to channel expansion theory: A longitudinal panel data
analysis. Computers & Education, 62, 32-40.
Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual
team effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gilson, L. L (2013, August 1). Virtual team effectiveness: An experiential activity". Small Group
Research (1046-4964), 44(4), 412.
Hightower, R., Lutfus, S., & Merrill, E. (1997). Virtual teams vs face-to-face teams? An
exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decision Sciences, 28(4). 975-996.
Hirschy, M. J. (. (2011). Virtual team leadership: A case study in Christian higher education.
Christian Higher Education, 10(2), 97-111.
Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership,
structural supports, and shared team leadership. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
99(3), 390-403.
Horwitz, F. M., Bravington, D., & Silvis, U. (2006). The promise of virtual teams: Identifying
key factors in effectiveness and failure. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(6),
472-494.
Huang, R., Kahai, S., & Jestice, R. (2010). The contingent effects of leadership on team
collaboration in virtual teams. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1098-1110.
Kirkman, B., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P., & Gibson, C. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on
virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of
Management Journal, 47, 175-179.
43. 40
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 21(1), 60-70.
Müller, R., & Jugdev, K. (2012). Critical success factors in projects. International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), 757-775.
Ocker, R. J., Huang, H., Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (2011). Leadership dynamics in
partially distributed teams: An exploratory study of the effects of configuration and
distance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 20(3), 273-292.
Staples, D., & Webster, J. (2007). Exploring traditional and virtual team members? 'Best
practices: A social cognitive theory perspective. Small Group Research, 38(1), 60-97.
Timmerman, C. E. (2003). Media selection during the implementation of planned organizational
change: A predictive framework based on implementation approach and phase.
Management Communication Quarterly, 16(3), 301-340.
Van De Ven A, & Delbecq, A. (1976, April). Determinants of coordination modes within
organizations. American Sociological Review. 41(2):322-338.
White, M. (2014). The management of virtual teams and virtual meetings. Business Information
Review, 31(2), 111-117.
