The Strength of Virtuality in Teams: Social Capital built on Weak Ties

Research into virtual teams has long focused on "glass half-empty" comparisons with "traditional" teams, exploring the ramifications of technology-mediated interactions that lack the social context and cues of face-to-face encounters. With this paper we extend an emerging argument for a new perspective focusing instead on a more optimistic picture in which the glass is actually half-full and technology-mediated interactions play a positive role alongside face-to-face interactions in teams. To achieve this we employ social capital, and in particular "weak ties", as a sensitizing concept or lens through which to view the emerging perspective of "virtuality", defined in terms of "discontinuities" in teams. The thinking this develops is used to examine data gathered from a year-long case study of a UK government-funded "virtual centre of excellence". The findings highlight task and membership boundaries as unique additional discontinuities to be considered in the definition of virtuality

[1]  Mei Lu,et al.  How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization , 2005, Inf. Syst. J..

[2]  Richard A. Guzzo,et al.  Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. , 1996, Annual review of psychology.

[3]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[4]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[5]  Dan Braha,et al.  PARTITIONING TASKS TO PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TEAMS , 2002 .

[6]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[7]  Blake Ives,et al.  Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research , 2004, DATB.

[8]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Fuzzy Teams: Boundary Disagreement in Distributed and Collocated Teams , 2002 .

[9]  Guido Hertel,et al.  Managing distance by interdependence: Goal setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams , 2004 .

[10]  S. Ghoshal,et al.  Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage , 1998 .

[11]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[12]  P. Adler,et al.  Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept , 2002 .

[13]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication , 1986 .

[14]  Guido Hertel,et al.  Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research , 2005 .

[15]  Anita L. Blanchard,et al.  Virtual Communities and Social Capital , 1998 .

[16]  Venkataraman Ramesh,et al.  The object-oriented team: Lessons for virtual teams from global software development , 2002, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[17]  Deborah G. . Ancona.  Outward Bound: Strategic for Team Survival in an Organization , 1990 .

[18]  Deborah G. . Ancona,et al.  Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance in Organizational Teams. , 1992 .

[19]  M. Tushman,et al.  Boundary Spanning Individuals: Their Role in Information Transfer and Their Antecedents , 1981 .

[20]  Lucy Gilson,et al.  Virtual Teams: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here? , 2004 .

[21]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[22]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Is Anybody Out There? Antecedents of Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 1998, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[23]  M. Tushman.  Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process. , 1977 .

[24]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  A new perspective on "virtual": analyzing discontinuities in the work environment , 2002, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.