rearranging the deckchairs blog has an interview with karen lojeski about ‘virtual distance’.

karen’s research shows virtual distance can cause competitive disadvantage, project failure, and economic loss. the research also showed that virtual distance does NOT only occur with geographically dispersed teams. yep, geographic distance is NOT REQUIRED. instead, the focus of the definition is on electronic communication.

Of course, geography can play into virtual distance, but the concept itself is really independent of location. You are at risk for virtual distance any time electronic communications becomes a substantial substitute for talking on the phone and meeting face-to-face. That lack of perceived “closeness” can have very real effects on the productivity, efficiency, and ultimately on the success of, IT projects.

there’s lots of research out there concerning the problems of electronic communication so this isn’t a new revelation. i don’t know of any research that shows how much in-house teams use electronic communication in comparison with f2f but i think it’s pretty obvious electronic communication is on the increase. at what level does it become to the detriment to the team?

karen consults and the website doesn’t reveal much but i’m intrigued and repulsed by this:

Using a set of metrics coined the Virtual Distance Indexâ„¢, VDI helps global corporations quantitatively measure the extent to which they are exposed to Virtual Riskâ„¢.

i can understand the desire to have a lovely little quiz or checklist which you can apply to your team in order understand problems and then used as a roadmap out of those problems but i don’t think they work very well.

having used a psychometric instrument in my research, i don’t have a lot of faith in them. i think it’s too easy to administer the instrument, get a result and rely very heavily on that result as the whole story. i think some instruments out there are easy to see through and there is research that some people try to answer these the way they think the administrator wants them to be answered. an example from my research, was collaboration was the #1 preferred way of dealing with conflict. if you think about conflict in your teams, is collaboration really the preferred way? that wouldn’t be my answer from previous experience. however i do think people know consciously and subconsciously that they should be collaborate as much as possible.

‘collaboration’ is one of those buzz words, one of those management concepts, that have been flung at us so many times we just nod and agree it’s a wonderful thing we should all participate in. but is it? and how do we learn to collaborate?

the latest issue of the M/C journal focuses on collaboration. i have only read the editor’s notes and the titles of the articles look very intriguing. i expect to comment more on the journal.

i am a fan of collaboration. sure i’m brilliant (laugh now – meant to be a joke) but i can’t know everything going on in the world. i can’t be an expert on teams as well as code perfect php, speak fluent german and know every intricate detail on tax law but if i had aspirations of building a financial software package for the german market I would need those skills plus more (i’m not btw). of course collaborating with a team who had those skills would allow me to develop such a product.

during my research, i looked at conflict management styles (of which collaboration is one). in 1964, blake & mouton wrote ‘ the managerial grid ‘ and developed 5 management styles based on how much you care about people & production. the 2 dimensional framework still persists and was made even more famous in 1976 with the thomas-kilmann instrument measuring conflict styles (Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument ).

it’s unclear as to the effects of collaboration in conflict. brown (1992) thought it was best to use collaboration in all situations. some reports found using collaboration in conflict increased promotability (blake & mouton, 1964; thomas, 1971) while others linked it to negative team functioning and effectiveness (de dreu & van vianen, 2001). when administering the ‘dealing with conflict instrument’ (hiam, 1999) to my research participants:

collaboration was the dominant preferred style for handling conflict!

in fact, 89% said they preferred to use collaboration. while testing the instrument, hiam’s research also showed collaboration was the primary style but at 47% – no where near as high as my 89%. i wonder if this is because of the push towards teamwork or the influence of the buzzword? could it be industry specific (i don’t know those details of his study but mine were heavy IT)? is it a virtual vs face-to-face team difference?

my gut feeling is collaboration should not always be used during conflict. how well each style works was beyond the scope of my research but maybe there will be something in this journal that further explores the issue.

while i have finished my thesis, i am leaving the survey online for a few months so others can participate. if you work in a virtual team and are interested in contributing, please email me at jen at riza dot com. i will supply you with additional information concerning the research & confidentiality as well as instructions.

fyi, the research involves an online survey which takes approximately 15-20 min and a short follow-up interview (via IM or email).

while i was considering going back to school, i knew i wanted to do a thesis. once before, in ’95, i attempted athesis. i decided on a broad subject (online communities & the music industry) but really didn’t get farther than some reading. i was working full-time & eventually realised there was no way i was going to be able to do both. when i found out that i had enough credits to graduate without doing the thesis (or any classes or anything except pay the graduation fee), i decided graduation was probably the better option.

this time around i was thinking about cross-cultural communication, specifically in virtual teams. i have worked in many virtual teams over the years and like online communities, they fascinate me.

(to be continued)

now that i’m finished with my thesis, i don’t know where to start to document it. while i was in the process, i felt like i didn’t have time to spare on a blog but once i started reading rowena murray’s book (which rocks BTW, i highly recommend it), i realised i should have been blogging sooooooo much more.

so now i guess ill try to touch on some high (and low) points of the journey as well as my research results and what is going on in the industry. since i’ve handed in my final version, i haven’t touched the thing. it’s been a good break. but now it’s time for me to get back on it. back into the habit of writing.