The Issue of "Globalization"

Today, the issue of “globalization” is influencing many companies and has noticeable affect on the work nature. 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. Therefore, it seems that if one worked in circumstances which are scattered it will positively affect teams. This will reduce “opportunities” of “informal collaboration and knowledge sharing”. (Chris Kimble, Feng Li and Alexis Barlow, 2000)

International working creates tension in the working of the teams because they have to tackle both geographic barriers, “time, culture and in some cases language differences” In order to understand the “barriers” faced by the members of virtual teams one should understand that the physical boundaries do not have any impact on “informational economy” it is important to understand the nature of the novel boundaries to appreciate the “informational economy”. (Chris Kimble, Feng Li and Alexis Barlow, 2000)

 “Outsourcing, downsizing and programs of planned redundancy” all reduce the “staffing level” because the employee turnover rate rises. It is easy to use new knowledge in place of the original foundations this is because the people leave and create problems for the virtual leaders. Besides, most of the companies today have to tackle with the high level problems with the international organizations. The demand is now on high level of needs to manipulate and attain more knowledge in the groups. (Chris Kimble, Feng Li and Alexis Barlow, 2000)

The idea of the development and maintenance of “virtual teams” is being greatly perplexed with the ideas like “virtual and networked organizations, the virtual workplace, virtual communities, electronic commerce and some forms of teleworking”. To understand the possibilities of situations they have been classified in to eight categories. (Chris Kimble, Feng Li and Alexis Barlow, 2000)

Four of these consisted of employees working for one particular company while the rest to the virtual group whose members are not the working for one particular organization but are working for many different organization from different sites of the world. In the first for of situation experts are selected from the particular organization these are “production planners and production operatives”. The second category is mostly used in the “consultants or external assessors or in business to business activities like B2B e-commerce”. This categorization also depends upon the principle of “proximity” to explicit whether employees are geographically close to each other or are scattered. A “work-cycle synchronicity” was designed to understand the interaction of the participants at different time periods. (Chris Kimble, Feng Li and Alexis Barlow, 2000)

The efficiency and “effectiveness” of the virtual teams has been greatly affected by the “spatial and temporal” distance between its members. This notion is significant in both cases whether the members are communicating with its own far fetched employees or a communication is being take place among different organizations. (Chris Kimble, Feng Li and Alexis Barlow, 2000)

The working of virtual teams in an “effective” manner is very much necessary while maintaining “trust and identity”. However, the identity of the virtual teams becomes vague in case of “spatial and temporal separation” of the team members. Several signs of “personality” and society positions we are used with are not present in the real world of existence.  In the real world the self is considered as united from inheritance. The “body” is defined to be an explicit method of defining “identity”. It serves as and “anchor” of the self which is confound in reality.  However, the world of virtuality is different from the real world. It is made up of the “information” in spite of “matter”. The information is expected to scatter and “diffuse”. The information conservation law is deficient in it. The participants of the electronic world are not close to each other rather they are diffused and are not bound physically with each other. It is easy for one to develop many virtual personality utilizing ones “time and energy”. (Chris Kimble, Feng Li and Alexis Barlow, 2000)

Chris et all conducted a study to understand the ideas and working of virtual teams and to point out the hurdles in the effective functioning of virtual teams.  About ten case studies of diverse virtual organizations were used in this study.  These focused upon the enlarged application f “virtual teams” around the world and the advantages they give to the “organizations and individuals”. These case studies also focus upon certain impediments caused in the “spatial and temporal separation of team members”. “Face to face interviews, emails, faxes, company reports and telephone calls” were used to collect data. (Chris Kimble, Feng Li and Alexis Barlow, 2000)

The interpretation of the case studies proved that certain barriers of technical nature do exist in the virtual communication. These hurdles consist of “unreliable systems and incompatible networks to slow computers and traffic congestion”.   Virtual leaders mostly communicate with their members via “voice, data, text, video and shared whiteboard”. Usage of these is helpful in creating an “integrated broadband telecommunication infrastructure”. Notwithstanding, these devices are unavailable at many places. Installation of such infrastructure would be definitely costly for the people. There is a great want for the expertise in the up gradation of time. In addition the highly increasing user’s expectations are also barriers to the success of virtual teams. These may be necessary to support virtual teams. This shows that The problems faced by team working in virtual setting are different from those faced by people working in the geographical proximity. For instance, “constraints of time zones, lack of non-verbal cues, cultural differences, problems of trust and identity”. This restriction of characteristics helps in the “effective” understanding of the virtual leadership. (Chris Kimble, Feng Li and Alexis Barlow, 2000)

A study was conducted by George E. Arnold to analyze the “relationship between the styles of leadership and its impact upon the success of a “virtual project”. Today, world has seen a considerable increase in “virtual projects”. Estimates show that in 2004 about thirteen million “employees” in US were part of at least one team making “virtual projects”. About five hundred “project management professional-certified project manager” of the “Kansas City, Missouri, Metropolitan area” was assessed for the study.  These managers were evaluated upon questionnaires. Which were divided in to three sections? These questionnaires were administered via emails. A total of two hundred and twenty nine responded of the selected sample of five hundred. The response rate was about half of the selected population, it seemed significant with the total of two hundred and eighteen responses needed to prove the variables at the selected “confidence interval”. (George E. Arnold, 2008)

The study showed that a “significant relationship” prevails among different leadership styles mostly importantly “transformational leadership and project success in virtual projects”. Quantitative analysis was done of the data. This data is expected to help leaders in comprehending the affect of different styles of leadership on the progress of different projects formulated for virtual communication among organizations. (George E. Arnold, 2008)

The usage of “collaborative technology” is growing at high rate in this rapidly growing environment. Today organizations are required to install “virtual projects” to bring close people from different geographical locations. The creation of virtual team will help the organizations perform their functions at different georgraphical locations bridging the gap of time and distance. This type of team supports the organization to bring close several talented people unable to maintain “face to face” working relations in different projects of virtual teams. “Virtual project teams create unique leadership challenges”. These types of teams do encounter restrictions in “face to face communication” therefore their activities are impeded due to “primary leadership activities”.  (George E. Arnold, 2008)

The selection of an accurate and suitable style of leadership is necessary to maintain the functioning and success of “virtual projects. (George E. Arnold, 2008)

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. The second category is mostly used in the “consultants or external assessors or in business to business activities like B2B e-commerce”. These categorization also depend upon the principle of “proximity” to explicit whether employees are geographically close to each other or are scattered. A “work-cycle synchronicity” was designed to understand the interaction of the participants at different time periods (George E. Arnold, 2008)

“A virtual project team is a group of geographically dispersed workers brought together across time and space through information and communication technologies”.  These teams work in unison and are very close to each other despite having temporal, spatial and cultural differences. They mostly communicate via “conference calls, video conferences, email” etc. this is leading to the development of a new leadership role in the criterion. Advancements in the technical and “collaborative soft wares” increases the utilization of “virtual team”. These types of teams play an important role in maintaining reductions in the “real estate expenses, increased productivity, higher profits, environmental benefits and greater access to global markets”.  (George E. Arnold, 2008)