Spontaneous virtual teams: Improving organizational performance through information and communication technology

Business Horizons (2013) 56, 361—375

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor

Spontaneous virtual teams: Improving organizational performance through information and communication technology Yu Tong a, Xue Yang b,*, Hock Hai Teo c a

City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong School of Business (Management), Nanjing University, Hankou Road 22, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China 210093 c National University of Singapore, Singapore 117418 b

KEYWORDS Spontaneous virtual team; SVT; Work performance; Team lifecycle; Team structure; Information and communication technologies; Challenges and solutions; Case analysis

Abstract This article aims to scrutinize an emerging and prominent type of work team in organizations: the spontaneous virtual team (SVT). Despite the promising benefits an SVT can provide, it is confronted with great challenges throughout its lifecycle. In this article, we first highlight the unique structure and characteristics of SVTs as compared to other conventional types of work teams. Furthermore, we decompose the lifecycle of an SVT into three stages. We then use interview data among SVT managers and participants across several industries to analyze the challenges, corresponding solutions, and the role of information and communication technologies in each of the three stages. Understanding the emerging SVTs will be of salient value to professionals and corporate executives who are interested in finding effective technology-enabled means and work patterns to improve organizational work performance. The current work can also serve as a basis for future academic research on exploring the SVT phenomenon. # 2013 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

‘‘Our global service department encourages employees to initiate valuable projects and collaborate with globally dispersed internal and external experts. This exciting task is

* Corresponding author E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Y. Tong), [email protected] (X. Yang), [email protected] (H.H. Teo)

definitely not easy.’’  A manager of a large global IT company, speaking anonymously

1. The emergence of spontaneous virtual teams A large web service company, ABC, encourages its employees to initiate and develop their individual ideas during office hours. Bearing in mind its vision

0007-6813/$ — see front matter # 2013 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.01.003

362 of promoting grassroots innovation, the company has implemented a corporate social network system that facilitates employee interactions and is embedded with detailed employee profiles and expertise. A software engineer, Ben, initiated the idea of creating a software extension to the company’s main service. To achieve his mission, Ben searched the company’s social network system. From this extensive pool of geographically dispersed colleagues, Ben identified two individuals who matched the essential expertise he required for this particular project. Ben approached them and fortunately received very positive responses. Thus motivated, Ben formed a team and began a virtual work relationship. The three members communicated with each other mainly through video conferencing and online text messaging tools. They shared project codes and versions through the online server. Two weeks later, the extension was successfully developed and released for public use. Another large IT consulting company, XYZ, has a different management philosophy than ABC. XYZ’s management exerts tight control over the company’s projects. Although an online community is available at the corporate level, employee participation is minimal. Jack, an active employee, wanted to improve a particular service process within the company but had no idea who he could work with. A week after he had posted his plan and requirements on the company’s online community, two colleagues from different departments expressed interest. Their self-reported expertise was apparently satisfactory. Jack accepted the two colleagues though he was unable to seek further verification of their expertise. Unlike Ben, Jack endured a negative collaboration experience with the two colleagues. During the collaboration, one member proved to be incompetent for the assigned tasks and failed to complete them on time. The other member, being preoccupied with his routine duties, failed either to respond promptly to emails or to be present at either their online or offline meetings. Frequently, the few discussions they did manage to hold were neither efficient nor effective. They failed to reach decisions promptly and progress was thus greatly hampered. After a month, Jack felt compelled to disband the team without completing the project. The two scenarios above illustrate an emergent type of work teams known as spontaneous virtual teams (SVTs). In an SVT setting, geographically and/ or temporally dispersed team members assume responsibility for the initiation, formation, and management of a virtual team. Organizational managers, who often assume supervisory roles in conventional work team settings, exercise minimal intervention

Y. Tong et al. and control over SVT activities. With rapid changes in technology and the increasing demand for product and service innovation, many companies are surging embracing SVTs to foster innovation development, internal process optimization, and product improvements (Bick, 2007; Cao, 2011; Mayer, 2006; Siegler, 2010). Despite the huge potential that SVTs can provide, they are confronted with great challenges throughout their lifecycles. It is evident from the second scenario that Jack, despite being the team initiator, lacked sufficient organizational resources or legitimate power in comparison to a team leader in a conventional work team setting. Consequently, Jack encountered difficulties in both managing his team and enforcing task execution. To the best of our knowledge, the extant literature provides very few insights on SVTs. Given the significant differences between SVTs and conventional work teams, prior knowledge on ensuring the success of conventional work teams may not be applicable in an SVT context (Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996). Here, it is our objective to explore effective solutions for solving the challenges inherent in SVT management. Specifically, we aim to address the following key questions:

 What is the unique structure of SVTs compared to other types of work teams in organizations?

 When and under what conditions (e.g., organizational environment/task nature) are SVTs appropriate?

 What are the unique characteristics and key challenges throughout the SVT lifecycle (from initiation to completion)?

 What managerial and IT-related factors are critical for SVTs’ success? To enhance our understanding of these issues, we first describe the underlying structure and lifecycle of a typical SVT. Next, we conduct in-depth interviews among several early SVT adopters. We then use the responses from the interviewees to support our analyses of SVT functions and offer some valuable suggestions on how to resolve potential problems in an SVT lifecycle.

2. The unique structure of SVTs SVTs are endowed with high degrees of ‘spontaneity’ and ‘virtualness.’ The concept of spontaneity generally refers to the degree to which individual

Spontaneous virtual teams

363

employees adopt a proactive self-starting and selfmanaging approach to relevant corporate tasks (Frese et al., 1996). Virtualness refers to the degree of technological means team members use for coordination and communication (Griffith, Sawyer, & Neale, 2003). Although spatial disparity among team members often induces a high degree of virtualness, this is not a necessary outcome. With the prevalence of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in work settings, employees are familiar with communicating with each other through virtual means even when they are located within the same corporate premise. As depicted in Figure 1, the high degree of spontaneity and virtualness in SVTs has caused significant shifts in traditional work team structures. Depending on their inherent degrees of spontaneity and virtualness, work teams in organizations can be categorized into four types:

and are assigned to and managed by team leaders. If collocated, communication between team members mainly takes the form of conventional means, such as face-to-face meetings and telephone calls. Additionally, electronic communication tools, such as video conferencing or online chat, can be complementary to conventional means of communication.

 Hierarchically imposed VTs (Quadrant 2)–—Team members can be geographically dispersed but are assigned and managed by team leaders. Electronic means, such as video conferencing or online chat, are more frequently utilized by such team members than by hierarchically imposed CTs. However, conventional communication means are still possible on special occasions.

 Self-organized CTs (Quadrant 3)–—Team members

 Hierarchically imposed conventional teams (CTs) (Quadrant 1)–—Team members are customarily drawn from the same department/organization

Figure 1.

are usually drawn from the same department/ organization, but team members are responsible for task initiation and management. If collocated, team members communicate with each other

Typical structures of organizational work teams

Spontaneity (High)

Self-organized conventional team

Spontaneous virtual team

Quadrant 3

Quadrant 4

Hierarchically imposed conventional team Assigned team

Management

leader

hierarchy

Hierarchically imposed virtual team

Team member Geographical collocaon (unit /organizaonal) Quadrant 1

Spontaneity (Low) Virtualness (Low)

Quadrant 2

Virtualness (High)

364 mainly through conventional means, such as faceto-face meetings and telephone calls. Electronic communication tools, such as video conferencing or online chat, can complement conventional communication means.

 SVTs (Quadrant 4)–—Team members can come from different geographic locations, and task initiation and management are the responsibility of team members, who communicate with each other mainly through electronic means, such as video conferencing or online chat. Conventional communication means may still be employed on special occasions. Compared with work teams, SVTs specifically emphasize cross-boundary and employee-driven collaboration. These characteristics of SVTs provide several benefits to an organization. From a teamcomposition perspective, SVT members who are not geographically restricted could be selected from an enlarged and diversified talent pool. Viewed from the task-processing perspective, SVT members are inclined to achieve timely collaboration and democratic decision making through the use of technologies and minimal intervention from management. From the performance perspective, it is possible that SVTs could generate more grassroots-level innovations in contrast to conventional work teams as the SVT tasks are initiated by team members. Anticipating these promising benefits, some large high-tech companies have adopted SVTs by not only encouraging their employees to form SVTs but also by providing facilitation resources, such as dedicated working hours and necessary communication tools. For instance, Google Inc. allows its engineers to spontaneously form SVTs to work with their global counterparts on innovative ideas within office hours. These SVTs have inspired almost half of Google’s new products, such as Gmail and AdSense (Bick, 2007; Mayer, 2006). In fact, some non-information technology (IT) companies with an open culture have also gradually adopted SVTs, albeit at a slower pace. For instance, a frontline worker at Baosteel Group Corporation (ranked third among global steelmakers) formed a virtual team of seven colleagues to initiate innovative ideas as far back as 1993. Arising from the flexible culture at Baosteel, the number of SVTs has mushroomed to more than 350 across different divisions of the company. Consequently, four patents are generated daily, and 48% of these ideas are contributed by grassroots employees (Cao, 2011). However, the autonomy associated with SVTs could also evolve into challenges if SVT activities are not coordinated or managed effectively

Y. Tong et al. throughout a team’s lifecycle. Accounting for this possibility, we further decompose the SVT lifecycle into various critical stages and analyze the associated characteristics, challenges, solutions, and contributions of ICTs. Further, we use in-depth interview responses from early SVTs adopters in different industries to enhance our understanding of these issues. Such an integration of theoretical and practical perspectives can effectively surface the underlying scheme of SVT operations.

3. The SVT lifecycle, challenges, solutions, and the role of ICTs Research reveals four perspectives on the appropriate management of a work team (Griffith et al., 2003). First, a company must create the right organizational environment (e.g., establishing supportive rewards). Second, the work team should comprise suitably qualified team members who are assigned to appropriate tasks and goals. Third, performance progress must be monitored and managed routinely. Fourth, the team needs to execute assigned tasks efficiently and effectively. In hierarchically imposed work teams (as shown in Quadrants 1 and 2), team members are only responsible for the last step (i.e., executing the task) while organizational management exerts control over the design of the organizational environment, team initiation, progress management, and performance evaluation. In SVTs (as shown in Quadrant 4), team members assume control of team initiation, performance management, and task execution, leaving only the creation of a supportive environment (e.g., relevant corporate policy) to organizational management. Based on Hackman’s (1987) categorization, we divide an SVT lifecycle into three main stages: team initiation and formation, task execution and monitoring, and task completion. This lifecycle is embedded within the facilitative organizational infrastructure controlled by management (see Figure 2). Given the distinct characteristics of SVTs, we expect the actions of SVT members or potential SVT members to be significantly different from those of conventional work teams within organizations. Consequently, the team is inclined to face unique challenges. Accordingly, the methods and tools applied to address these challenges and assist in the functioning of an SVT should also reveal new manifestations and roles. To further explore the above propositions about the SVT development lifecycle, we conducted indepth interviews with SVT members from eight companies that are leading advocates and supporters of SVTs. To establish a common ground for

Spontaneous virtual teams Figure 2.

365

A typical lifecycle of an SVT Organizational Environment(Management’s control) Team members’ control Stage1

Stage2

Stage3

Team initiation and formation

Task execution and

Task completion

monitoring

and evaluation

IT, culture, and management support

comparison, we also selected interviewees from the IT departments of non-IT industries. Interview questions were generally open ended. We first asked questions to understand the organizational environment that facilitates the emergence of SVTs. For each stage of the SVT lifecycles, we asked the following questions: For the team initiation and formation stage: U Under what circumstances are SVTs likely to be initiated? U How do you search for potential SVT members? U What are the challenges of and criteria for selecting SVT members? For the task execution and monitoring stage: U What regulations or mechanisms does the team have in place to coordinate and facilitate the teamwork? U Who normally takes charge of ensuring collaboration effectiveness? U What challenges do you face when executing tasks and monitoring progress? U What tools do SVT members use to communicate with each other? For the task completion stage: U How would you rate your SVT’s general performance? U Does the SVT experience have any impact on members’ future work? The above questions guided our interviews and were aimed at enabling us to systematically explore the challenges and possible solutions of SVTs in different industries. First, we extensively approached a wide range of companies from diverse industries, but we eventually narrowed our focus to a few companies that best served the purposes of our investigation as the SVTs’ work patterns were yet to be available in most conventional organizations. From our results, we perceived that the different types of companies

provided distinct or similar responses on some dimensions, which further enabled us to scrutinize the unique manifestations and dynamics of SVTs by taking into account the impacts of different industries and related work natures or patterns (see Table 1). The eight companies were selected from the manufacturing, logistics, finance, and IT industries (the last category is best categorized as belonging to the web services, hardware, software, and IT consulting fields based on companies’ main business). These globally renowned companies, comprising a workforce of more than 5,000 global employees, operate in multiple important markets, such as the United States, China, and Southeast Asia. We interviewed at least two managers (e.g., managers of the research and development [R&D] department) from each company regarding corporate-level inquiries and at least four low-ranking employees who had participated in SVTs on particular issues regarding SVT execution. Leveraging these multi-level responses, we further elaborated on the characteristics and challenges in the SVT lifecycle. A summary of the findings is shown in Figure 3.

3.1. A facilitative organizational environment In contemporary organizations with a hierarchical structure as well as formalized processes and policies, employees tend to follow established rules in performing routine tasks. Bureaucratic procedures and a top-down management culture have been deeply engrained in these organizations. Hence, employees possess limited control and autonomy pertaining to how they should and could do their work. Such an organizational structure and attendant work culture severely hinder the initiation of SVTs, which is often driven by ideas being voluntarily contributed by low-ranking employees.

366 Table 1.

Y. Tong et al. Summary of SVT interview responses

Stage

Characteristics

Summarized response

Company A

Team initiation and formation

Objective of SVTs

To improve products/processes

H

To meet demanding deadlines

H

B

C H

H

Task nature

H

Ad hoc

H

H

Urgent

H

H

H

Internal platforms

H

H

Professional capability and skill complementarity

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H H

H

H H H H H

H

Decisions are made together by all members

H

H

H

H

Telephone calls

H

H

Instant messaging tools

H

H

Web conferencing

H

H

Face-to-face meetings

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H H

H

H H

H

H

H H

H

On-time completion Depending on the nature of the project (e.g., scale)

H

H

BBS Satisfactory quality

H

H

Emails

Depending on individual members (e.g., commitment)

H

H

Opinions from experienced members may be given more credit

Task performance evaluation criterion

H

H

Location

Task completion and evaluation

H

H

Communication approach

Task communication

H

H H

Resource accessibility

Initiator coordinates and monitors the progress of the project and milestones

H

H

H

H

Interest

Regulation and control

H

H

Availability

Task execution and monitoring

H

H

H

Relevant experience Team work spirit

H

H

H

Electronic expert repository Member selection criteria

H H

Internal references by other colleagues External professional platforms

G

H

Short lifecycle

Personal network of direct acquaintances

F

H H

Across functional departments/ countries Member search channels

E

H

To work on additional personalinterest tasks beyond work requirements (grassroots level) To address shortage of manpower (specialist)

D

H H

H

H

H

Spontaneous virtual teams

367

Table 1 (Continued )

Stage

Characteristics

Summarized response

Company A

B

More successful with no managerial intervention and minimal approval procedures

C

D

E

F

G

H

More successful with common familiar middlemen and top management support Impacts on future work

H

Gaining experience with physical and virtual team collaboration and communication

H

Helping identify members for future projects

H

Enhancing professional capabilities

H

Building friendships/credibility among members

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H H

H

Encouraging every member to contribute ideas; Making people feel excited about their work

H

A–—Manufacturing company, B–—Logistics company, C–—Finance company, D–—Web service company (local), E–—Web service company (global), F–—Hardware company, G–—Software company, H–—IT consulting company.

Figure 3.

The lifecycle of an SVT with key attributes Facilitative Organizational Environment Innovative and democratic culture Flattened organizational structure Ground-level empowerment

Stage 1 Team initiation and formation - Selective objectives, task type, and initiators - Skill and knowledge combination - Team spirit/responsibility - Temporal and spatial barriers

Stage 3 Task completion and evaluation

Stage 2 Task execution and monitoring

- Quality assessment

- Democratic project management and

- Future collaboration

decision making

- Organizational acceptance

- Communication

Key Attributes of an SVT’s Lifecycle

368

Y. Tong et al.

To encourage SVT initiation, organizations need to cultivate innovative and democratic cultures (Table 2). Some effective strategies include designing performance appraisals such that greater weight is accorded to innovative achievements as well as allocating certain periods for employees to work on job-related tasks of personal interest to them (e.g., Google’s 20% policy). In addition, organizations need to shift to a flatter structure and empower low-ranking employees by granting them greater work autonomy. Relevant policies are also required to provide support for SVT initiation. For instance, cross-boundary SVT activities involving members outside the organization should be approved at the policy level and facilitated with appropriate resources. Most of the managers in the eight companies of our study acknowledged the importance of providing a supportive infrastructure for grassroots SVT initiatives. Although many of these companies did not have formal SVT policies in place, both the corporate culture and management style were sufficiently flexible. Hence, low-ranking employees could leverage internal and external human capital for self-interest projects in work-related areas. However, most of the managers and employees also believed that merely providing a supportive infrastructure was not sufficient for an SVT’s success. While a flexible corporate culture and sufficient resources could possibly foster the emergence of SVTs, an SVT’s effective functioning largely relies on appropriate management and monitoring by team members with minimal control from managers. To obtain a systematic and holistic view of SVTs’ unique challenges and possible solutions, we divide our analysis based on the SVT lifecycle, including team initiation and formation, task execution and monitoring, and task completion and evaluation.

3.2. Team initiation and formation stage The SVT lifecycle commences with the initiation and formation stage. In this stage, facilitated by the supportive culture and organizational resources, employees who are interested in performing a new task spontaneously look for team members to form an SVT. In the following sections, we describe the appropriate objectives and task characteristics Table 2.

for forming SVTs as well as commonly used strategies to identify suitable team members. 3.2.1. Objectives and task nature From our interview responses, we perceived that improving products/processes is the most commonly cited objective for initiating an SVT. This is likely to happen when the products/processes fall within a small to medium scale and require a relatively high level of innovation. For instance, one respondent from the web service company (global) was involved in ‘‘SVT projects to improve global products by integrating local requirements.’’ Furthermore, many SVTs are formed to work on additional personal-interest tasks. For example, one respondent from the hardware company pointed out that ‘‘most of our SVTs are initiated because of personal interests and some such teams are working on projects that may not be part of the company’s requirements.’’ We also discerned from our interviews that many SVTs handle ad hoc tasks with a short lifecycle and demanding deadlines. Such tasks can be completed effectively because a small number of grassroots SVT members can be involved and easily managed. For instance, respondents from the software company were mainly involved in ‘‘projects to solve short-term problems at the grassroots level, and the deliverables are typically decks that can be shared with management.’’ In addition, SVT tasks are likely to involve members across functional departments or even countries. For example, a respondent from a finance company commented, ‘‘SVTs here are formed for project discussion between different departments, such as people from the business departments needing the support of IT staff to handle urgent requests made by clients.’’ Another interviewee from the web service company (local) emphasized that SVT tasks ‘‘spanning across the organizational structure (e.g., the resolution of horizontal technical issues by the non-technical department or the technical department’s aim to resolve vertical project development), spur the formation of SVTs consisting of members from different departments.’’ Objectives and task nature largely determine the size of SVTs. To the extent that SVTs often involve voluntary participation, have demanding deadlines, and are additional to employees’ routine work requirements, such teams are likely to only attract a

Key challenges and lessons learned regarding facilitative organizational infrastructure

Challenges The conflicting nature between SVTs and conventional organizations

Key Lessons Learned

 Organizations can cultivate an innovative and democratic culture through revising performance appraisals and job structures

 Organizations can flatten the structure and empower low-ranking employees to collaborate within and outside the organization

Spontaneous virtual teams small number of people initially. SVTs’self-organizing nature and grassroots tasks further favor small groups of team members. According to our interview results, a typical SVT consists of two to ten members at formation whereas the total number of members within an SVT typically ranges from two to five for small-size teams and from five to ten for medium-size teams. New members interested in the task could join the SVT in latter stages if a mutual agreement is reached between the new and existing members. It is also possible that existing members may withdraw their commitment to the project or be advised to leave the team on special occasions, such as changes to a member’s availability or his/her inability to meet the task requirements. As for the initiators, low-ranking employees are generally the main force behind initiating SVTs since the formation of an SVT requires that the initiator voluntarily identifies concrete and meaningful tasks. Initiators do not necessarily need to be IT professionals either. For instance, in the finance company, ad hoc SVT projects were usually led by business personnel. Particularly, an ideal SVT initiator should possess a high level of professional expertise, great spontaneity and independence at work, sufficient project management experience, and resource accessibility. Given the characteristics mentioned above, SVTs are more likely to be formed in R&Drelated jobs than in other types of jobs because the former provide a relatively more flexible and spontaneous work environment and are mostly likely to encourage spontaneous working initiatives and innovative endeavors among employees. 3.2.2. Member search The process of team formation has three key challenges: identifying members with the right skills, forming a team with a strong team spirit, and coping with location and time zone barriers. First of all, skills and expertise are critical dimensions of an optimal team structure (Bunderson & Boumgarden, 2010). Potential SVT members need to possess the right expertise and skill sets necessary for the SVT task; previous experiences with similar tasks or projects are equally valued. For example, a respondent from the logistic company commented, ‘‘If our SVT is formed to resolve certain technical problems, members of the team should have faced similar technical problems before, and they [should be] experts in those relevant subjects.’’ Moreover, skills complementarity among various members assists in ensuring the effectiveness of sub-task assignments (Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer, & Ilgen, 2007). In line with these selection criteria, a professional expertise repository or expertise bank that explains individuals’ prior experiences and

369 detailed expertise would prove especially invaluable for providing reliable expert information. Second, as SVTs have no hierarchically imposed regulations and participation is voluntary, forming a team with a strong team spirit represents a challenge. For example, Hahn, Moon, and Zhang (2008) found that developers are more likely to be attracted to open source software development teams with which they have a higher level of familiarity and trust. One interviewee from a manufacturing company also emphasized that ‘‘whether a team member’s team spirit can satisfy the needs of a project’’ is an important criterion for SVT member selection. Another employee in the web service company (local) mentioned the necessity of ‘‘potential members proactively following the rules of communication and collaboration in order to participate in the SVT.’’ While SVT members endure minimal formal organizational penalties for breaking self-defined SVT rules, additional measures need to be established to deter irresponsible behavior or identify potential problematic members. For instance, an IT-enabled expertise-seeking platform can provide a reputation feedback system to track an expert’s prior performance and reviews from prior team members. Broadcasting a participant’s performance online or providing search functions can be one way of delivering these messages. This strategy can help highlight the importance of long-term reputation and professionalism in the context of SVTs. Third, some potential SVT members may be hesitant to participate in SVTs because they are geographically dispersed or in different time zones from other members, which could complicate their future communication and coordination endeavors. For example, a respondent in a web service company (global) stated, ‘‘Because of the time zone issue, the efficiency of projects has been affected to a certain extent. Therefore, we must verify if potential members have any communication problems with each other before the commencement of any collaboration.’’ Other respondents in the hardware company also preferred potential members to be located within the same time zone. To mitigate this concern, organizational management should provide support to internal and external team members for complementary use of various asynchronous communication technologies (e.g., emails, discussion boards, or knowledge sharing databases) as well as synchronous media (e.g., instant messaging, video conferencing, or telephone calls). Overall, only by successfully addressing issues related to skills composition, team spirit, and location/time zone barriers can SVTs be established with an optimal team structure and commence functioning without undue delay.

370

Y. Tong et al.

In SVTs, the responsibility of searching for team members lies primarily on the team initiator. Different from conventional work teams in which leaders often use their legitimacy to allocate team members, initiators of SVTs who lack formal authority may experience difficulty in finding suitable members. Owing to the requirements of diversified knowledge and voluntary commitment, SVT initiators are less likely to identify all members within the departmental or organizational boundaries. Based on our interview results, potential members can generally found through two channels. On the one hand, initiators can find team members through the conventional channels of their personal networks or through references from third parties, such as their colleagues, friends, alumni, and acquaintances. For instance, one respondent from the ITconsulting company commented that most of the time, he ‘‘looked for potential SVT members from the pool of colleagues with prior collaboration experience or by seeking references from other colleagues if potential members are not familiar to or are located in other countries.’’ On the other hand, they may make use of various IT-enabled platforms that largely extend the boundaries of expert search and assist in identifying qualified professionals who may be complete strangers located in other continents. For example, one respondent from the manufacturing company mentioned that ‘‘the effects of SVT collaboration would be more efficient when relevant professional websites can be used in searching for potential members.’’ Initiators can approach potential team members within focused platforms (e.g., professional communities/forums, such as open source websites, and corporate bulletin board systems [BBSs], such as IBM’s Bluepage), or they can use emerging Web 2.0 applications (e.g., social networking sites

Table 3.

and blogs/microblogs). In addition, initiators can post team assignments on these platforms to seek interested collaborators. Several of the companies we interviewed had already incorporated their corporate BBSs or social networks. Besides the SVT initiator, other potential members (belonging or not belonging to the team) can also recommend suitable candidates residing in their personal networks. It is to be noted that all these channels employed by initiators do not manifest any power difference between initiators and other team members. Though an initiator may not always be the team leader in SVT initiatives, he/she does play a leading role in raising the task and searching for potential members. One important point to emphasize is the involvement of participants outside the initiator’s company. The likelihood of having outside members can vary with factors like the openness of organizational policies, the culture toward creative and flexible working patterns, professional connections between outsiders and the company, and the use of communication tools. Theoretically, being able to leverage the largest pool of talent to elevate corporate performance is desirable, but many obstacles and restrictions cannot be ignored in practice. In the current stage, most of the interviewed companies mainly relied on their own employees or employees from collaborating companies to accomplish SVT tasks. We summarize the key challenges and lessons learned for the first stage of SVT function in Table 3.

3.3. Task execution and monitoring stage Distinct from hierarchically imposed teams, the nature of SVTs (e.g., spontaneity, minimal managerial

Key challenges and lessons learned regarding the team initiation and formation stage

Challenges

Key Lessons Learned

Identifying tasks that are appropriate for SVTs

 Ad hoc problems requiring innovation and diversified knowledge, as well as those

Finding members with adequate professional capabilities

 It is important to establish a professional expertise repository or expertise bank that

Identifying members with strong team spirit

 A reputation feedback system can be built to track potential members’

Addressing members’ concerns about temporal and spatial barriers

 Organizational management should make complementary communication

Finding an efficient way to search for members

 Member search can be executed by leveraging the advantages of both conventional

that are relatively small and of short duration, are most appropriate SVT tasks

 Management can initially experiment with SVTs in the R&D department and then gradually implement SVTs throughout the organization enables people to search for potential members, and check their prior experience and expertise areas performance and reviews provided by prior team members technology support (synchronous and asynchronous) available for all team members

channels (e.g., personal network) and IT-enabled professional platforms

Spontaneous virtual teams

371

intervention) induces different types of project management and decision making during task execution. Specifically, in the absence of strict management control, the progress of task execution is managed by either the initiators or by the entire team. Similarly, without formal power resulting from organizational hierarchy, SVT team members usually adopt a democratic stance in decision making by providing convincing arguments to persuade others with the aim of reaching a consensus. Sometimes, more experienced members or those with a finer reputation are able to obtain more credit during discussion and decision making. It is interesting to note the similarity and distinction between SVTs and conventional work teams from the perspective of leadership and followership. In some circumstances, similar to the team leader in conventional work teams, the initiator of an SVT takes the leadership role in team coordination and management with other members following him/her throughout the entire team lifecycle. However, such leadership is primarily based on the initiator’s familiarity and expertise with the SVT task rather than organizational authority. Hence, other members of an SVT could have many more opportunities to participate in team management and coordination compared to conventional work teams. In other words, leadership and followership in SVTs may engender more flexible changes. A member can either be just a follower throughout the entire lifecycle or play a leading role over time. This type of behavior is less likely to happen in a conventional work team under tight hierarchical management control and with a relatively stable team structure. In addition, during task execution, the demand for rapid task outcomes and the lack of prior familiarity among team members can possibly result in low levels of trust, stickiness, and sense of belonging. Subsequently, these challenges are likely to cause a newly formed SVT to fail in the midst of a project. Unpleasant collaboration is neither desirable for SVT task outcomes nor future team reunions. The extant literature on virtual teams describes how enhancing communication effectiveness and

Table 4.

efficiency are critical to addressing these collaboration challenges (Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2007). Specifically, more effective communication tools can be leveraged to facilitate the collaboration process. Our interview results suggest that SVTs members who are geographically or temporally dispersed primarily rely on multiple advanced ITenabled tools for regular communication. One interviewee in a finance company commented, ‘‘We do not depend on one tool, and we will find all means to make the communication effective.’’ For example, according to the software company’s employees, emails and BBSs can be used for nonurgent issues that do not require immediate attention while instant messaging tools, video conferencing, and corporate internal communication tools can be used in more time-sensitive cases or to solve difficult time-consuming problems or those requiring interaction. Traditional communication media, such as telephone calls or even face-to-face meetings, are necessary to complement the virtual approach on special occasions. For example, one interviewee from a finance company stated that approximately ‘‘80% of the work can be done virtually, but we do fly to other members’ locations to hold face-to-face discussions for the remaining 20% of the problems.’’ One respondent from the IT consulting company also recommended that ‘‘different tools for effective communication include telephone calls, corporate online communication tools, and emails.’’ Some forms of documentation are often necessary to keep track of team collaboration or discussion history for monitoring purposes. For instance, the IT consulting company keeps records of weekly telephone calls and online meeting notes. The key challenges and lessons learned for the second stage of SVT function are summarized in Table 4.

3.4. Task completion and evaluation stage Upon task completion, an SVT’s mission is deemed to be fulfilled and the team can be dismissed. Before the disbandment of an SVT, task quality needs to be evaluated. However, as an SVT task is initiated and managed by team members rather

Key challenges and lessons learned regarding the task execution and monitoring stage Key Lessons Learned

Challenges Managing coordination effectively without management intervention

 A democratic management style and decision-making process should be adopted  An SVTcan include members with more experience or better reputations so they can

Communicating effectively between distant and unfamiliar members

 Advanced IT-enabled communication tools are helpful  A variety of IT and non-IT communication tools need to be provided to smooth the

adopt senior roles when conflicts occur

communication process

372

Y. Tong et al.

than organizational management, determining who is in the best position to assess the SVT results could be tricky. In fact, by providing the resources to support an SVT, organizational management is often in the best position to evaluate task results as they are often responsible for incorporating the outcomes into end products or internal management. However, the team members–—rather than organizational management–—possess the most knowledge of task completion. Toward this end, evaluating the success of an SVT should be undertaken by both management and SVT team members based on multiple assessment criteria, including the value of the outcomes, member satisfaction, and external feedback. According to the interviewees’ responses, satisfactory SVT outcomes can be subject to project scale, communication effectiveness, and individual member satisfaction. Smaller projects requiring frequent and effective communication generally achieve better results. However, SVT research has yet to address the issue of systematic knowledge sharing and transfer. Since not all members of an SVT are likely to belong to the same organization, explicitly codifying information becomes critical for knowledge transfer. The initiator could possibly undertake the responsibility of documenting the experiences in the corporate knowledge repository and safeguarding critical corporate intellectual assets. In our interviews, most participants believed that SVT collaboration was of immense value to their future work. First, the SVT experience enriches participating members’ expertise and knowledge pool. For example, one respondent from the hardware company stated that ‘‘learning about advanced technology development’’ is an important outcome of SVTs. Furthermore, when facing similar issues, it becomes easier for team members to approach appropriate experts for further collaboration. For example, one interviewee in a manufacturing company appreciated SVTs’ ability to ‘‘enhance the Table 5.

company’s project development capability and ability for rapid response.’’ Second, as participation is spontaneous, SVT members are usually passionate about tasks and are highly motivated to contribute their innovative ideas. This may not prove feasible in other conventional work situations in which employees are instructed to do their work. Indeed, a respondent from the web service company (global) commented that SVT collaboration can ‘‘enhance the diversity of innovativeness among its members.’’ Third, the SVTwork experience can assist in enhancing employees’ responses to emergent task requirements as well as their ability to utilize ICT tools for effective communication, and they can extend team members’ pool of knowledge and expertise for offline duties. For example, many SVT members acknowledged that they would ‘‘apply the positive experience of SVTcollaboration when working with face-toface teams’’ and that ‘‘some core SVT members may even become professionals.’’ In fact, some SVT experiences and knowledge can be further disseminated if they are well documented or shared in knowledge repositories or virtual communities. Generally, corporate collaboration in the form of SVTs can result in benefits of various dimensions for both companies and individual employees. The key challenges and lessons learned for the third stage of SVT function are illustrated in Table 5.

3.5. Comparative summary Based on the above analysis of the SVT lifecycle, its unique challenges, and proposed solutions, we then identified some meaningful patterns related to SVT activities by comparing the responses from different companies. For example, we found that personal network and internal platforms are most frequently mentioned as the major source for SVT member search. Professional capability and skill complementarity are the most common requirements for choosing a potential member. Email exceeds telephone

Key challenges and lessons learned regarding the task completing and evaluation stage Key Lessons Learned

Challenges Deciding who should assess SVT results

 The success of an SVT should be evaluated by both management and team 

Documenting and transferring knowledge to all stakeholders for organizational learning

members based on multiple assessment criteria, including the value of the outcome, member satisfaction, and external feedback Smaller projects with frequent and effective communication can generally achieve better results

 The initiator should assume the responsibility of utilizing electronic knowledge repositories or virtual communities to document and share gained knowledge  The SVTexperience enriches participating members’ expertise and knowledge pools, better motivates SVT members to contribute their innovative ideas, and helps employees apply their experiences to other offline duties

Spontaneous virtual teams

373

calls in the interviewed companies for SVT member communications. Finally, the majority of the interviewees agreed that SVT collaborations can help team members gain experience for both physical and virtual team collaborations and communication. In addition, we also compared the responses according to the types of companies interviewed. For example, by categorizing the interviewed companies into either non-IT or IT companies (A, B, C vs. D, E, F, G, H), we found that non-IT companies are more likely to initiate SVTs to improve products/ processes, meet demanding deadlines, handle emergent problems/requests, and address manpower (specialist) shortages. In contrast, SVTs in IT companies prefer to encourage individuals to work on additional personal-interest tasks beyond work requirements (grassroots level). We further compared SVTs with conventional teams at different stages of a team’s lifecycle. As shown in Table 6, SVTs exhibit more signs of innovativeness, flexibility, and democracy and tend to be

Table 6.

more technologically savvy. However, the advantages of SVTs can only be realized when organizations and team members appropriately manage the unique difficulties associated with this team structure.

4. Future research directions In today’s fast-changing technology-enabled business world, problems and opportunities can present themselves suddenly. The SVT provides a vehicle to address these problems and opportunities rapidly with resources that transcend organizational boundaries. Based on our interviews with eight different companies, this article provides some critical insights into the challenges companies face in adopting SVTs as well as the possible solutions that could be deployed to ensure favorable outcomes when incorporating SVTs. Nevertheless, some issues are still present within the current SVT content, which set the stage for future research. Herein, we emphasize two areas

Comparison between SVTs and conventional teams

Stage Team initiation and formation

Task execution and monitoring

Task completion and evaluation

Characteristics

Unique Features of SVTs

Unique Features of conventional teams

Objective

Focus more on fulfilling employees’ personal interests regarding grassroots issues

Focus more on managing assigned tasks

Nature of task

Often beyond basic work duties, on an ad hoc basis, of short duration, or facing demanding deadlines

Often within routine work duties

Member search

Apply additional online tools, such as social networks or online communities

Based on manager’s knowledge

Member selection criteria

In addition to seeking members with professional capabilities and team spirit, selection is based on members’ interests, responsibility, and communication skills

Professional capabilities and team spirit

Regulation and control

Initiator is unable to formally control the team; sometimes other members can undertake management and coordinator roles

Project leader controls and monitors the team’s progress

Leadership and followership

Initiator can be the leader but other members have more opportunities to participate in SVT management and decision making

The team leader enacts leadership with authority, and team members should follow the leader throughout the collaboration

Task communication

Offline and online communication tools (dominant)

Offline and online communication tools

Task performance

Assessed by both management and team members

Assessed by management or clients

Impacts on future work

Accumulate experience for future work and assist in recognizing future potential collaborators

Accumulate experience for future work

374 that organizations should consider and take appropriate facilitative measures to address: staff training and managing outside contributors.

4.1. Training Training is a strategy often employed by organizations to enhance work team performance. Interestingly but not surprisingly, the organizations we interviewed did not have any specific training programs for SVTs. Therefore, future research should explore the feasibility of this typical managerial endeavor in the context of SVTs as well as appropriate forms of training. In fact, there are two major difficulties that organizations may encounter in designing a successful training program for SVTs. First, to the extent that SVT tasks are initiated by organizational employees, certain SVT outputs may not be expected or may not turn directly into organizational products. Second, SVT members are not restricted to a fixed group of people and are usually geographically dispersed. Hence, organizational managers may have difficulties regarding how much effort and resources should be devoted to SVT-related training, what particular types of training programs are suitable, and who is the right target of such training. The research findings in our interviews highlighted the importance of corporate-wide education to promote SVTs among both managers and groundlevel employees. While IT-related training (e.g., utilizing technology platforms) is important, those related to enhancing employees’ managerial and communication skills could be more pressing. The majority of SVT members are from the grassroots level within an organization. Hence, they may lack experience in managing projects and resolving conflicts during decision making. Although organizations should be aware of the risk some SVTs having zero return, they should allocate resources to help members build necessary technical and managerial skills for successful SVT collaboration. In other words, during early SVT development, organizations should strive to better understand innovative working patterns and gradually take effective supporting measures to leverage their multiple benefits and huge potential. More research needs to be done to achieve a systematic understanding of SVT management and respective training issues.

4.2. Managing outsiders’ contributions One key benefit of SVTs is the ability to leverage geographically dispersed experts to tackle organizational problems. While it is possible to invite outside experts to join SVTs, organizations must be cautious about and effectively manage associated problems

Y. Tong et al. before being able to fully enjoying the benefits. The primary concern for inviting outsiders is the threat of security and privacy. With the possibility and convenience of offering outside experts access to organizational information and resources, confidential information, such as product design, source code, or trade secrets, may leak to other parties either intentionally or unintentionally. As formal contracts or agreements to manage outside experts’ behaviors may not always exist, different forms of technical and managerial measures should be considered to educate internal employees and minimize potential risks. For instance, organizations could closely monitor their network and only allow outside experts to work on certain network files. In addition, policies could be implemented to only assign non-sensitive tasks to outside experts. However, it is to be noted that tight security control and monitoring can seriously invade outside experts’ privacy and subsequently decrease their interest in joining and contributing to the SVT tasks. Thus, an appropriate balance between encouraging the extension of the existing organizational boundary and its effective management should be achieved through gradual explorations. To summarize, considering that SVTs are able to propel organizations into innovating and improving organizational performance, it is imperative that both organizations and individual employees are well prepared to embrace this emerging form of teamwork. As contemporary organizations gain experience with SVTs, they will be enabled to generate more powerful and unconventional innovations in the near future.

Acknowledgment The authors gratefully acknowledge the research grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (71102039) in support for this study.

References Bick, J. (2007, October 21). The Google way: Give engineers room. The New York Times. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http:// www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/jobs/21pre.html?_r=1 Bunderson, J. S., & Boumgarden, P. (2010). Structure and learning in self-managed teams: Why ‘‘bureaucratic’’ teams can be better learners? Organization Science, 21(3), 609—624. Cao, W. (2011). Kong liming from Baosteel: A laboratory inside a worker’s home [in Chinese]. Sina Finance. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://finance.sina.com.cn/roll/ 20110902/092710423307.shtml Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 37—63.

Spontaneous virtual teams Griffith, T. L., Sawyer, J. E., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Virtualness and knowledge in teams: Managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 265—287. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hahn, J., Moon, J. Y., & Zhang, C. (2008). Emergence of new project teams from open source software developer networks: Impact of prior collaboration ties. Information Systems Research, 19(3), 369—391. Humphrey, S. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007). Trait configurations in self-managed teams: A

375 conceptual examination of the use of seeding for maximizing and minimizing trait variance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 885—892. Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2007). The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 783—808. Mayer, M. (2006). MS&E 472 course: Entrepreneurial thought leaders seminar series (ETL Seminar Series). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Siegler, M.G. (2010, October 22). Twitter employees get Google’s 20% time. . . for the entire next week. TechCrunch. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/22/ twitter-hack-week/