Statistically Significant Relationship

The analysis of the data in the study show that a “statistically significant relationship” prevails between “transformational leadership and project success in virtual projects”. In fact “transformational” style of leadership has emerged as a prominent and most “effective” leadership style especially in the “virtual projects and their success”. Though, some of the personalities characteristics of transformational leadership are not prominent in case of virtual projects and teams for instance “charisma and vision”. Organizations are developing certain “trans-national teams” to perform in an effective manner. It will help to overcome certain means of efficiency and flexibility to reduce certain problems (Daphna, Niv and Dalia, 2005)

This restriction of characteristics helps in the “effective” understanding of the virtual leadership. “Transactional leadership” is also significant in virtual leadership for it helps in the comprehension of “task completion”. . Hence, it is necessary for the leaders nowadays to possess certain skills with the help of which they can interact with people in a successful manner. Leaders must have skills to lead with success in this widely altering world. It is necessary for the leader to aware people of the virtual communication methods present. In this way they will be able to select the most felicitous for themselves and their organization. (Daphna, Niv and Dalia, 2005)

Daphna et all conducted a study to find out the influence of the “division of Labor, Hierarchy and work process” upon the “efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction” of virtual leadership. The structure of the virtual leaders can increase the “corporate output” of such leaders. The outcomes of the study suggest that the “virtual-structured teams are more successful than virtual-unstructured teams”. The functioning of the virtual teams is expected to enhance in future. (Daphna, Niv and Dalia, 2005)

During previous few years team working has came into existence several organizations are now using teams to perform their functions. The usage of “virtual team” has gained attention and significance in various organizations most of these are international organizations that perform their activities at the global level. Therefore on the basis it the teams can be defined as “part of the model that predicts the influence of the virtuality and structural levels on processes, social and tasks, that effect team output”. (Daphna, Niv and Dalia, 2005)

Most common “question” asked these days is that “Has the virtual era put an end to team structure”. Today the team’s “virtuality level” has be accepted as an “integral” construct of the definition of team. Several variables are affected by the team’s “virtual level”  such as “face to face” members of  team posses high degree of cohesiveness’,  they are capable to maintain “stronger social ties”, they are more task oriented and show a dedication towards tasks and participants of the teams. They also possess an affectionate relationship with each other. However, in case of the time period to maintain “stronger social ties” is more. Virtual teams take more time to maintain stronger ties with people. Similarly, it has a “negative” influence upon the outcomes of the teams. “Frequency and distance” are considered responsible for it. The unfamiliarity among the team members is also a factor that hinders in the exchange of ideas and information among team members. (Daphna, Niv and Dalia, 2005)

About fifteen interviews were conducted among the team members. It was found that the “virtual leader” are being treated as something novel, something which does not posses the proper item to operate with. Explicitly, all the members f “virtual teams” know that a virtual team operate in isolation and does not involve the participation of “structural characteristics”. The method of communication suggests what kind of “processes” is involved in the virtual teams. The processes can be either “task or social oriented”. Usually, “Virtual communication is task oriented” this type of communication is cheaper than “face-to-face communication”. The entire study found that certain level of reforms is needed in the task orientation to maintain and control virtual communication. However more organization is required for this purpose. (Daphna, Niv and Dalia, 2005)

“Structures increases effectiveness of virtual leaders”. Similarly “satisfaction and efficiency of virtual leaders” also term to increase. However, such leaders are insignificant. One can not aspect one particular impact upon other. The main findings of the study were that virtual team can be made more successful then “traditional teams” by giving more attention to “hierarchy and division of labor” instead of “work process”. The biggest demerit of “virtual team” is that it restricts the information exchange only a limited quantity of information is used. There are many chances of the development of “stereotypes and hierarchy” in “traditional teams”. The limited information present with the “virtual teams” causes the “division of labor and hierarchy” the accepted characteristics that lead to the success of the task fulfillment. (Daphna, Niv and Dalia, 2005)

Ross in his study found that “leadership competencies” that lead to “quite effective global innovation teams in large multinational corporations”. The concept of leadership has been complicated due to the attempt to encourage “highly skilled, creative, multi-cultural and widely dispersed team members”.(purpose of the study is reflected here) “The global innovation team leader” is therefore, expected to possess certain competencies that are unique in nature and have never been underscored before. . About thirty six expertises were involved in the study. “Delphi two round methodology and an internet-based data collection tool” was use to analyze these leaders. (Ross Haynes Messinger, 2008)

This study consisted of sixteen “Asian, European and North American” nationals. The outcomes of the study were derived on the basis of about twenty significant “cultural, technical and social competencies”.  It was found that the “cultural competencies” were more significant than “technical and social competencies”. “Participative” style of leadership is important for the “global innovation team leader”.  A participative leader possesses an “entrepreneurial spirit” and keeps an authenticity for others and also is “self- managed”. “The global innovation team leader” surpasses the “cultural competencies”.  Ross developed a model that assists in the development of leadership in the “corporate sector”.  (Ross Haynes Messinger, 2008)

Ross presented a “GIT” leadership paradigm to initiate “cultural, technical and social categories”. The findings of the study showed that “GIT leader resembles the “generic manager in terms of teamwork and cooperation, several differences were found”. “Achievement orientation and impact and influence” are the significant “competencies for the generic manager and technical professional but are of only moderate importance for GIT leader”. (Ross Haynes Messinger, 2008)

A research was conducted to find out which causes the accomplishments “virtual teams”. A “Norwegian tele-company” sent four hundred emails for data collection. This study showed a prolix leadership approach. This study also identified the prolix devices that “leader of agenda” adopts to maintain “trust and in-group solidarity”. From the results of the study it was found that virtual leaders portray an “egalitarian leader role, building personal and emotional ties and downplays her authority”. (Karianne Skovolt, 2009)

“Virtual team is a group of people who collaborate across space, time and organizational boundaries and use electronic media as primary communication tool”. The “possibilities and challenges” arise in the process of taking forward that are not present in all situations. These teams work in unison and are very close to each other despite having temporal, spatial and cultural differences. It is assumed that future organizations will require such leaders that will be capable to handle “uncertainty and competition” among a different working people. This will help leaders attain the “viability and profitability” of their organizations. This categorization also depends upon the principle of “proximity” to explicit whether employees are geographically close to each other or are scattered. (Karianne Skovolt, 2009)