Virtual teams are hard to get right (Ferrazzi, 2014). To get it right, there are four must-haves: the right team, the right leadership, the right touchpoints, and the right technology.

ANNA PARINI Managing Yourself Getting Virtual Teams Right by Keith Ferrazzi Virtual” teams—ones made up of people in different physical locations—are on the rise. As companies expand geographically and as telecommuting becomes more common, work groups often span farflung offices, shared workspaces, private homes, and hotel rooms. When my firm, Ferrazzi Greenlight, recently surveyed 1,700 knowledge workers, 79% reported working always or frequently in dispersed teams. Armed with laptops, Wi-Fi, and mobile phones, most professionals can do their jobs from anywhere. The appeal of forming virtual teams is clear. Employees can manage their work and personal lives more flexibly, and they have the opportunity to interact with colleagues around the world. Companies can use the best and lowest-cost global talent and significantly reduce their real estate costs. But virtual teams are hard to get right. In their seminal 2001 study of 70 such groups, professors Vijay Govindarajan and Anil Gupta found that 82% fell short of their goals and 33% rated themselves as largely unsuccessful. A 2005 Deloitte study of IT projects outsourced to virtual work groups found that 66% failed to satisfy the clients’ requirements. And in our research, we’ve discovered that most people consider virtual communication less productive than face-toface interaction, and nearly half admit to feeling confused and overwhelmed by collaboration technology. There is good news, however. A 2009 study of 80 global software teams by authors from BCG and WHU-Otto Beisheim School of Management indicates that wellmanaged dispersed teams can actually outperform those that share office space. Similarly, an Aon Consulting report noted that using virtual teams can improve employee “ EXPERIENCE 120 Harvard Business Review December 2014 productivity; some organizations have seen gains of up to 43%. So how do you create and lead an effective virtual team? There’s a lot of advice out there, but through our research and our experience helping organizations navigate collaboration challenges, we’ve concluded that there are four must-haves: the right team, the right leadership, the right touchpoints, and the right technology. By following simple high-return practices for each, managers can maximize the productivity of teams they must lead virtually. The Right Team Team composition should be your starting point. You won’t get anywhere without hiring (or developing) people suited to virtual teamwork, putting them into groups of the right size, and dividing the labor appropriately. People. We’ve found that successful virtual team players all have a few things in common: good communication skills, high emotional intelligence, an ability to work independently, and the resilience to recover from the snafus that inevitably arise. Awareness of and sensitivity to other cultures is also important in global groups. When building a team, leaders should conduct behavioral interviews and personality tests like the Myers-Briggs to screen for all those qualities. If you inherit a team, use the same tools to take stock of your people and assess their weaknesses; then train them in the skills they’re lacking, encourage them to coach one another, and consider reassignment for those who don’t make progress. Size. Teams have been getting larger and larger, sometimes even exceeding 100 people for complex projects, according to one study. But our work with companies from large multinationals to tiny start-ups has taught us that the most effective virtual teams are small ones—fewer than 10 people. OnPoint Consulting’s research supports this: Of the virtual teams the firm studied, the worst performers had 13 members or more. “Social loafing” is one cause. Research shows that team members reduce effort when they feel less responsible for output. The effect kicks in when teams exceed four or five members. As groups grow, another challenge is ensuring inclusive communication. The late Harvard psychology professor Richard Hackman noted that it takes only 10 conversations for every person on a team of five to touch base with everyone else, but that number rises to 78 for a team of 13. Thus to optimize your group’s performance, don’t assemble too many players. Roles. When projects require the efforts of multiple people from various departments, we devise appropriate subteams. Our approach is similar to the X-team strategy advocated by MIT professor Deborah Ancona, who defines three tiers of team members: core, operational, and outer. The core consists of executives responsible for strategy. The operational group leads and makes decisions about day-to-day work but doesn’t tackle the larger issues handled by the core. And the outer network consists of temporary or part-time members who are brought in for a particular stage of the project because of their specialized expertise. Ferrazzi Greenlight worked with a large multinational manufacturing company to help a dispersed team make better cross-division decisions, particularly when product output from one area fed others. The group was composed of more than 30 members—a mix of HQ, operational, and divisional leaders, some of whom reported to others. While many had knowledge vital to the work at hand, a fair number were included on an honorary basis. By the time we were asked to help, teammates openly acknowledged that they were in disarray and unable to achieve their financial goals. We brought everyone together for a face-to-face summit and then broke the group into smaller constituencies to brainstorm short-term wins. Those subteams continued to meet virtually after all parties were back in their respective offices. One group, made up of five divisional GMs, latched onto the goal of greater cross-selling and had a near-immediate success story: As a small, narrowly focused team, they were able to recognize that a plentiful stabilization agent used in ice cream could be repurposed to replace a scarce agent needed by other customers, including makers of hairstyling products and fracking fluids. The Right Leadership A recent study of engineering groups showed that the best predictor of success for managers leading dispersed teams is experience doing it before. That said, we’ve seen even novices excel by practicing some key behaviors that, while also critical in face-to-face settings, must be amplified in virtual ones: Fostering trust. Trust starts with respect and empathy. So, early on, leaders should encourage team members to describe their backgrounds, the value they hope to add to the group, and the way they prefer to work. Another practice, utilized by Tony Hsieh and Jenn Lim at their entirely virtual organization, Delivering Happiness, is to ask new hires to give video tours of their workspaces. This allows colleagues to form mental images of one another when they’re later communicating by e-mail, phone, or text message. Remember too that relationship building should be an Just over a third of American workers want leadership roles in their companies, and only 7% aspire to the C-suite. CAREERBUILDER SURVEY, 2014 HBR.ORG December 2014 Harvard Business Review 121 ongoing process. While employees who are in the same office commonly chat about their lives, virtual teammates do so much more rarely. Try taking five minutes at the beginning of conference calls for everyone to share a recent professional success or some personal news. This is probably the easiest way to overcome the isolation that can creep in when people don’t work together physically. Encouraging open dialogue. If you’ve established trust, you’ve set everyone up for open dialogue, or “observable candor”—a behavior that professors James O’Toole and the late Warren Bennis described as a foundation of successful teamwork. Our own recent study of 50 financial firms confirmed that leaders of dispersed groups, in particular, must push members to be frank with one another. One way to do this is by modeling “caring criticism.” When delivering negative feedback, use phrases like “I might suggest” and “Think about this.” When receiving such feedback, thank the person who offered it and confirm points of agreement. A tactic for conference calls is to designate one team member to act as the official advocate for candor—noticing and speaking up when something is being left unsaid and calling out criticism that’s not constructive. On the flip side, you should also occasionally recognize people for practices that improve team communication and collaboration. Clarifying goals and guidelines. Management gurus from John Kotter to Chip and Dan Heath acknowledge the importance of establishing a common purpose or vision, while also framing the work in terms of team members’ individual needs and ambitions. Explain to everyone why you are coming together and what benefits will result, and then keep reiterating the message. Specific guidelines for team interaction are equally vital; research shows that rules reduce uncertainty and enhance trust in social groups, thereby improving productivity. Agree on how quickly team members should respond to queries and requests from one another, and outline follow-up steps if someone is slow to act. Virtual teammates often find themselves saying, “I thought it was obvious that…” or “I didn’t think I needed to spell that out.” So also insist that requests be specific. Instead of saying “Circle back to me,” state whether you want to give final input on a decision or simply be informed after the decision is made. If you have a conference call about project details, follow up with an e-mail to minimize misunderstandings. Also make it clear that multitasking on calls isn’t OK. According to a recent study, 82% of people admit to doing other things—from surfing the web to using the bathroom—during team calls. But virtual collaboration requires that everyone be mentally present and engaged. Explain your policy, and when the group has a virtual meeting, regularly call on people to share their thoughts. Better yet, switch to video, which can essentially eliminate multitasking. Delivering Happiness finds that using video also reinforces one of the company’s core values: having fun. At the start of videoconference calls, participants pretend to make direct eye contact as their images appear side by side on-screen, much like the opening of the hit 1970s TV show, The Brady Bunch. New agenda items are often introduced with music—for example, to lead into a discussion on driving the firm’s long-term growth, the emcee might play “Stayin’ Alive” by the Bee Gees, causing everyone to burst into dance. The fun and camaraderie match anything coworkers experience in person while ensuring that people are engaged in the conversation and focused on the specific tasks or topics at hand. The Right Touchpoints Virtual teams should come together in person at certain times. Here are the stages at which it’s most critical: Kickoff. An initial meeting, faceto-face if possible and using video if not, will go a long way toward introducing teammates, setting expectations for trust and candor, and clarifying team goals and behavioral guidelines. Eye contact and body language help to kindle personal connections and the “swift trust” that allows a group of strangers to work together before long-term bonds develop. This is when you can assess Keith Ferrazzi is the CEO of Ferrazzi Greenlight. The Dangers of Distance Geographic separation is just one challenge facing 21st-century work groups. Karen Sobel Lojeski of Stony Brook University and Richard Reilly of the Stevens Institute of Technology calculate the “virtual distance” among teammates by charting three types of distance: PHYSICAL—geographic or temporal separation, or affiliation with different departments or organizations OPERATIONAL—variations in team size, the extent of members’ other commitments, the amount of face-toface interaction, or technical skills and support AFFINITY—differences in culture, rank, or the level of interdependence and preexisting relationships When rating teams on a five-point scale in each subcategory, Lojeski and Reilly found that teams with high virtual-distance scores overall showed drops in: TRUST—down 83% INNOVATION—down 93% SATISFACTION—down 80% PERFORMANCE—down 50% Even colleagues on different floors in the same building might be considered physically distant, and operational and affinity distance can certainly affect colocated workers. But the associated problems are more common—and more acute—for virtual teams. EXPERIENCE 122 Harvard Business Review December 2014 team dynamics and work to bridge specific gaps—for example, by assigning an achievable task to a pair of dissimilar colleagues, allowing them a “small win”—as HBS professor Teresa Amabile calls it—together. Onboarding. Too often, plans for bringing new people onto a virtual team consist of a short e-mail or conference-call introduction to the rest of the group and a dozen or more documents that the newcomers are supposed to read and digest. A much better approach is to give them the same in-person welcome you gave the group. Fly them into headquarters or another location to meet with you and others who will be important to their success. Encourage them to videoconference with the rest of their teammates. We also recommend pairing newcomers with a mentor who can answer questions quickly but personally—the equivalent of a friendly colleague with an office around the corner. Milestones. Virtual team leaders need to continually motivate members to deliver their best, but e-mail updates and weekly conference calls are not enough to sustain momentum. In the absence of visual cues and body language, misunderstandings often arise, especially on larger teams. Team members begin to feel disconnected and less engaged, and their contributions to the project decline. So get people together to celebrate the achievement of short-term goals or to crack tough problems. Ritesh Idnani, founder and CEO of Seamless Health, a health care startup that relies on dispersed teams of managers, is adamant about bringing everyone together in person at least quarterly. Also, whenever someone new joins the team, he allocates two weeks for that individual to talk to colleagues deemed “important to know,” who can share information still offer useful input; research has shown that the best solutions to problems often come from unexpected sources. All interaction is documented and therefore becomes a searchable database. When collaboration platforms combine all the elements above, they become the center of team activities, and using them brings greater efficiency, not extra, unnecessary work. John Stepper, a managing director at Deutsche Bank, created the bank’s Communities of Practice electronic discussion forums, in which 100,000 employees now converse with colleagues in similar roles around the world. Stepper calls this collaboration “working out loud.” All the activity is open and searchable, making it easy for existing teams to find subjectmatter experts or review their own work and for ad hoc teams to form around business-related passions. For example, when Stepper made data on employee resource use available, a few interested parties self-organized into a virtual project team to create a system that documents individuals’ cost savings over time. As people began to compete for the biggest savings, the company benefited. “What’s important is that you’re identifying common niches and connecting people toward some purpose,” he explains. THE EARLIEST VIRTUAL teams were formed to facilitate innovation among top experts around the world who didn’t have time to travel. Today teams of physically dispersed employees are more often just a necessity of doing business. Companies can boost such groups’ productivity, though—even beyond that of teams who share office space—by following the practices we describe here. HBR Reprint R1412J about the company and the job. “After that, I ask the person to sit down with me and tell me what he or she learned,” says Idnani. Not only does the new hire gain valuable insights, but Idnani does too. “You end up learning a lot from someone coming from the outside with a fresh pair of eyes.” The Right Technology In our experience, even top-notch virtual teams—those with the mosttalented workers, the finest leadership, and frequent touchpoints—can be felled by poor technology. We recommend using platforms that integrate all types of communication and include these key components: Conference calling. Look for systems that don’t require access codes (helpful for team members who are driving) but do record automatically or with a single click and facilitate or automate transcription. The best systems even help monitor the time that each individual spends talking versus listening. Also consider one-on-one and group videoconferencing, since visual cues help establish empathy and trust. Direct calling and text messaging. By supporting real-time conversation between two remote participants, direct calls are one of the simplest and most powerful tools in the arsenal. And as teenagers know, texting is a surprisingly effective way to maintain personal relationships. Discussion forums or virtual team rooms. Software ranging from Microsoft SharePoint to Moot allows team members to present issues to the entire group, for colleagues to study or comment on when they have time. Scholars refer to this sort of collaboration as “messy talk” and say it’s critical for completing complex projects. People can even weigh in on topics outside their domain and ADDITIONAL READING “Teamwork on the Fly” by Amy C. Edmondson HBR, April 2012 Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances by J. Richard Hackman Harvard Business Review Press, 2002 “Building an Effective Global Business Team” by Vijay Govindarajan and Anil K. Gupta MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer 2001 “X-Teams: Teams Get Extroverted” by Deborah Ancona MIT Sloan School of Management News Briefs, July 2005 HBR.ORG December 2014 Harvard Business Review 123 Harvard Business Review Notice of Use Restrictions, May 2009 Harvard Business Review and Harvard Business Publishing Newsletter content on EBSCOhost is licensed for the private individual use of authorized EBSCOhost users. It is not intended for use as assigned course material in academic institutions nor as corporate learning or training materials in businesses. Academic licensees may not use this content in electronic reserves, electronic course packs, persistent linking from syllabi or by any other means of incorporating the content into course resources. Business licensees may not host this content on learning management systems or use persistent linking or other means to incorporate the content into learning management systems. Harvard Business Publishing will be pleased to grant permission to make this content available through such means. For rates and permission, contact permissions@harvardbusiness.org.

MMM – 211

T3 2017

Assessment 1 – Essay

DUE DATE AND TIME: Week 6, Friday December 15, 2017, 11.59PM

PERCENTAGE OF FINAL GRADE: 35%

Learning Outcome Details

Unit Learning Outcome (ULO)	Graduate Learning Outcome (GLO)
ULO 4: Undertake research and write a critical essay on a topic related to team work	GLO1: Discipline knowledge and capabilities: appropriate to the level of study related to a discipline or profession. GLO4: Thinking: evaluating information using critical and analytical thinking and judgment.

Assessment Feedback:

Students who submit their work by the due date will receive their marks and feedback on CloudDeakin by 15/01/2018 at 5pm.

Description / Requirements

Virtual teams are hard to get right (Ferrazzi, 2014). To get it right, there are four must-haves: the right team, the right leadership, the right touchpoints, and the right technology.

Your task is to write an essay on the following:

Using the quote (above) discuss how you would apply these four “must-haves” to your team.
Evaluate (compare and contrast) examples of where virtual teams have worked well and where they have worked against effective outcomes.

The topic is broad enough for you to focus and build your argument how you decide. You may argue there are other necessary elements, but the expectation is that the essay will be well grounded in the literature and will ‘tell a coherent story’.

Students must correctly use the Harvard style of referencing.

Submission Instructions

You must keep a backup copy of every assignment you submit, until the marked assignment has been returned to you. In the unlikely event that one of your assignments is misplaced, you will need to submit your backup copy.

Any work you submit may be checked by electronic or other means for the purposes of detecting collusion and/or plagiarism.

When you are required to submit an assignment through your CloudDeakin unit site, you will receive an email to your Deakin email address confirming that it has been submitted. You should check that you can see your assignment in the Submissions view of the Assignment dropbox folder after upload, and check for, and keep, the email receipt for the submission.

Notes

Penalties for late submission: The following marking penalties will apply if you submit an assessment task after the due date without an approved extension: 5% will be deducted from available marks for each day up to five days, and work that is submitted more than five days after the due date will not be marked. You will receive 0% for the task. ‘Day’ means working day for paper submissions and calendar day for electronic submissions. The Unit Chair may refuse to accept a late submission where it is unreasonable or impracticable to assess the task after the due date.
For more information about academic misconduct, special consideration, extensions, and assessment feedback, please refer to the document Your rights and responsibilities as a student in this Unit in the first folder next to the Unit Guide of the Resources area in the CloudDeakin unit site.
Building evidence of your experiences, skills and knowledge (Portfolio) – Building a portfolio that evidences your skills, knowledge and experience will provide you with a valuable tool to help you prepare for interviews and to showcase to potential employers. There are a number of tools that you can use to build a portfolio. You are provided with cloud space through OneDrive, or through the Portfolio tool in the Cloud Unit Site, but you can use any storage repository system that you like. Remember that a Portfolio is YOUR tool. You should be able to store your assessment work, reflections, achievements and artefacts in YOUR Portfolio. Once you have completed this assessment piece, add it to your personal Portfolio to use and showcase your learning later, when applying for jobs, or further studies. Curate your work by adding meaningful tags to your artefacts that describe what the artefact represents.

MMM211 Ass 1, T3 2017


Criteria	Fail – needs significant improvement	Pass – acceptable work with areas for improvement in overall academic standard	Credit – good solid work, demonstrating some potential for excellent academic work in the future	Distinction – very good work, demonstrating a sound grasp of essay technique and academic issues	HD – excellent work, demonstrating sound academic ability and understanding.
Analysis and Interpretation	No analytical interpretation of the statement provided mainly descriptive only addressed half the question * no evidence of theory to substantiate argument. 0 – 9.9	Limited analytical and critical interpretation of the statement provided; content is mainly descriptive. * No discussion on opposing views evident. * Relevance of any quotes used is not always explained, quotes add little value to the discussion. * Discussion and supporting material does not adequately address the key parts of the statement, and/or presents unsupported arguments. * Examples (where used) are not clearly relevant to issues under discussion. Limited Integration of theory/literature. 10 – 11.9	* Some analytical and critical interpretation of the statement evident (but not in-depth). * Limited consideration given to opposing views. * Relevance of any quotes used is explained, but they are not well integrated into discussion. * Discussion and supporting material cover the key themes of the statement, demonstrating an acceptable understanding of the topics. * Examples (where used) are relevant and illustrative, but are generally not well-integrated into issues under discussion. Some integration of theory/literature. 12 – 13.9	Analytical and critical interpretation of the statement provided (not just a description or summary). * Critical analysis presented of opposing views. * Relevance of any quotes used is generally clearly integrated, explained and supported, and adds value to discussion. * Discussion and supporting material clearly draw out and analyse key themes of the statement, demonstrating a good understanding of the topics. * Examples (where used) are generally relevant, illustrative and integrated into issues under discussion * Theory/literature integrated throughout. 14 – 15.9	* Analytical and critical interpretation of the statement is significant, and shows excellent depth of knowledge and insight. * Significant and insightful critical analysis presented of opposing views. * Relevance of any quotes used is clearly integrated, explained and supported, and adds value to discussion. * Discussion and supporting material clearly draw out and analyse key themes of the statement, demonstrating an excellent understanding of the topic. * Examples (where used) are clearly relevant, illustrative and integrated into issues under discussion * Theory /literature used extensively to support arguments. 16 – 20
Research	Demonstrates little or no attempt to meet the research requirements for the assignment 0 – 4.9	Minimum requirement of at least 8 scholarly sources was met but quality of references poor or irrelevant. * Argumentation relies heavily on only one or two articles or books. * Arguments and ideas presented are not at all, or sparsely supported by research references. 5 – 5.9	Minimum requirement of at least 8 academic journal articles) evident. * Argumentation relies on only one or two articles or books. * Arguments and ideas presented are not always supported by research references. 6 – 6.9	Minimum requirement of 8 academic journal articles) exceeded * Argumentation reflects (although not well integrated) ideas from multiple sources. * References are used to support arguments and ideas. 7 – 7.9	* Minimum requirement of 8 academic journal articles) exceeded. * Argumentation reflects integrated ideas from multiple sources. * References are used skilfully to support arguments and ideas. 8 – 10
Referencing and essay structure	Demonstrates little or no attempt to meet the prescribed referencing requirements for the assessment. * Essay lacks cohesion and does not flow no or poor clear essay structure/no/poor use of sections no or poor conclusion. 0 – 2.4	* A number of arguments and ideas of others are not acknowledged in-text, and/or little attention has been paid to correctly presenting in-text citations using Harvard referencing style. * References cited in the text are missing from the list of references (or sources in the reference list do not appear in the body of the essay), and/or little attention has been paid to ensuring sources are correctly formatted using Harvard referencing style. * Word limit significantly over/under. * Discussion includes an over-reliance on direct quotes. * No clear conclusion (and/or introduction of new ideas). * Limited evidence. No reference back to the essay statement. Grammatical issues and oversights including spelling and sentence structure. 2.5 – 2.9	* Arguments and ideas of others are generally acknowledged using in-text citations, although these may not always follow the Harvard referencing style. * Generally, references cited in the text are included in list of references, and effort has been made to correctly format sources using Harvard referencing style. * Meets the word limit. * Discussion generally flows well, but is disjointed or fragmented in some places. * Discussion includes a generally acceptable balance of quotes and paraphrasing. * Conclusion is provided, but doesn’t adequately draw together and summarise the main issues emerging from critical analysis/or refer back to the essay statement. * Some spelling or grammatical oversights (which may include sentence structure). 3 – 3.4	* Arguments and ideas of others are generally acknowledged, and in-text citations are correctly presented using Harvard referencing style. * All references cited in the text are included in list of references, and the majority of sources are correctly formatted using Harvard referencing style. * Meets the word limit. * Discussion is generally logically structured, providing links between issues established with attention paid to paragraph structure. * Discussion includes an appropriate balance of quotes and paraphrasing. * Conclusion draws together and summarises the main issues emerging from critical analysis and refers back to the essay statement. No new material included here. * Few spelling or grammatical oversights. Sound sentence structure. 3.5 – 3.9	* Arguments and ideas of others are acknowledged, and in-text citations are correctly presented using Harvard referencing style. * All references cited in the text are included in list of references, and all sources are correctly formatted using Harvard referencing style. * Meets the word limit. * Discussion is cohesively and logically written and structured, with clear links between issues established and attention paid to paragraph structure. * Direct quotes used economically and effectively. * Conclusion insightfully draws together and summarises the main issues emerging from critical analysis and refers back to the essay statement. No new material included here. No spelling or grammatical errors sound sentence structure. 4 – 5
Overall Score	Fail (N) 0 or more	Pass (P) 18 or more	Credit (C) 21 or more	Distinction (D) 25 or more	High Distinction (HD) 28 or more