scholarly journals Something Old or Something New?

2021 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Klostermann ◽  
Greta Ontrup ◽  
Lisa Thomaschewski ◽  
Annette Kluge

Abstract. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic forced organizations to adjust co-located teams to virtual teams instantly. The applicability of known success factors for virtual teamwork to this situation is uncertain. Therefore, this study addresses the following research question: what factors relate to successful team adjustment to the new virtual work context? We hypothesize that perceived team success is influenced by individual and team factors and that these effects of team-related factors on perceived team success are moderated by team processes and team-/task-technology fit. A time-lagged online study was conducted at two timepoints during the initial lockdown in Germany with N = 110 employees working in teams. We found trust, task-technology fit, and communication to be significantly associated with perceived team performance. The results suggest that the instant adjustment might have led to a new phase related to team cycle episodes. We propose guidelines to prepare teams for future instant adjustments.

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justyna Szewc

Abstract The aim of this paper is to extend the knowledge about virtual teams and above all to stress the differences between face-to-face and virtual teams as well as to define its chosen success factors. This paper is based on an extended literature review of virtual teams. The author describes virtual teams, reasons for their implementation and four factors that are prerequisites for team success. The first finding is that the successful introduction of a virtual team and its management requires knowledge about the special characteristics of this team and the effective handling of challenges. Second, the literature review of virtual teams reveals a lack of research on the differences in motivation between face-to-face and virtual teams. The originality of the article is ensured by selection of the most important factors which, according to the literature review, lead to the success of virtual teams and by a description of areas that need to be explored in the future.


Author(s):  
Deborah S. Carstens ◽  
Stephanie M. Rockfield

Organizations are shedding conventional work team structures in favor of virtual team structures that are increasing in popularity (Lee-Kelley, Crossman, & Cannings, 2004). Ecollaboration enables collaboration between individuals not constrained by geographical distance or time. The emergence of the virtual team concept provides organizations with an alternate approach to managing work and individuals that are geographically separated (Gatlin-Watts, Carson, Horton, Maxwell, & Marltby, 2007). An advantage of virtual teams is that organizations can tap into resources rapidly to create a specialized work team that acts like a team, works like a team but doesn’t look like a typical team because team members may not be co-located (Stough, Eom, & Buckenmyer, 2000). E-collaborative technologies such as computer-based conferencing systems are of critical importance to the success of a virtual team (Arnison & Miller, 2002). In the absence of water-cooler philosophizing, virtual teams rely on technology to build trust between team members, resulting in greater synergy and ultimately team success in carrying out work tasks (Arnison & Miller, 2002; Stough et al., 2000). The article focus is on technological and organizational aspects of e-collaboration occurring today and forecasted for tomorrow. The specific topics addressed are e-collaboration in organizations, e-collaboration in organizations of today, specific e-collaboration success factors and future trends of e-collaboration in organizations of tomorrow.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 315
Author(s):  
Malte Schäfer ◽  
Manuel Löwer

With the intent of summing up the past research on ecodesign and making it more accessible, we gather findings from 106 existing review articles in this field. Five research questions on terminology, evolution, barriers and success factors, methods and tools, and synergies, guide the clustering of the resulting 608 statements extracted from the reference. The quantitative analysis reveals that the number of review articles has been increasing over time. Furthermore, most statements originate from Europe, are published in journals, and address barriers and success factors. For the qualitative analysis, the findings are grouped according to the research question they address. We find that several names for similar concepts exist, with ecodesign being the most popular one. It has evolved from “end-of-pipe” pollution prevention to a more systemic concept, and addresses the complete life cycle. Barriers and success factors extend beyond the product development team to management, customers, policymakers, and educators. The number of ecodesign methods and tools available to address them is large, and more reviewing, testing, validation, and categorization of the existing ones is necessary. Synergies between ecodesign and other research disciplines exist in theory, but require implementation and testing in practice.


2021 ◽  
pp. 097215092110056
Author(s):  
Kanupriya Sethi ◽  
Baidyanath Biswas ◽  
Krishna Chandra Balodi

Adoption of an electronic marketplace (EM) business model for business-to-business (B2B) transactions has increased over the years. In part, this evolution and adoption of B2B EMs can be explained by the Internet-enabled disintermediation of the existing value chains of businesses, followed by cybermediation. This study aims to understand the platform architecture design and governance-related factors and strategic choices that influence the success of B2B EM start-ups. We draw from the literature on the ‘Temple Framework’ and the classification of B2B EMs by transaction content, structure, and governance to identify these critical factors. Given that the literature is primarily based in the context of developed economies, the factors and choices identified from the review are empirically validated using three case studies in the Indian B2B context. Thus, this exploratory study aims to help founder managers of emerging-economy B2B EMs by providing a checklist to avoid common pitfalls.


2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roksolana Mykhaylyk ◽  
Elinor Ytterstad

Aims and research questions: This paper presents a new study addressing the issue of cross-linguistic influence in acquisition of referring expressions. The main research question is how to predict directionality of this influence in a dual language development. Methodology: The method is an elicited production task. We consider the phenomenon of direct object referring choices, i.e. noun, pronoun and null element, in a ‘null-object’–‘overt-object’ language pair (Ukrainian and English). Data and Analysis: Participants of the experiment are 4–6-year-old Ukrainian–English bilinguals (N20) and Ukrainian monolinguals (N21). The data are analyzed in the statistical program R, utilizing the R-library function lme4. The results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) of each direct object type. Findings: Our data reveal that while there is no significant difference in Ukrainian object types in most of the age groups, there is a considerable amount of null object usage in English at the ages of four to five. Originality: The innovative nature of this study lies in: (i) the consideration of a licit object omission at a later stage of language development (from 4 to 6 years of age); (ii) the examination of an under-investigated language combination (i.e. English and Ukrainian); and (iii) the innovative approach to linguistic data analysis (e.g. comparing OR values). Implications: Our findings suggest that the directionality of influence in dual language acquisition depends on the developmental stage, language-specific means of syntax–pragmatics interaction, and extra-linguistic input-related factors. At the early stages of development, the null-object language is likely to influence the overt-object language, especially under conditions of limited exposure to the latter.


2016 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 5043
Author(s):  
Beata Jalocha ◽  
Ewa Bogacz-Wojtanowska

In Europe, we are witnessing a growth in the social economy sector, i.e. in socio – economic organizations, which belong neither to the traditional for profit sector (market economy) nor to the public sector (government) (Deforuny, 2001; Young, 2007) - they rather act at the interface of civil society and markets (Jäger, 2010). The main goal of these organizations, called social enterprises or social business, is doing business for socially useful purposes. These initiatives may take the form of traditional Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), like foundations and associations, as well as new kinds of organizations for example social cooperatives, partnerships, funds.Social economy is situated between public and business sphere of administration and combines both, social objectives and the ones profit-oriented. Social entrepreneurship is unquestionably a desirable feature of social economy understood as reaching planned economic objectives with the use of available resources. Another feature comprises in using involvement and creativity of excluded persons and thus, solving social problems, among others, structural unemployment and disadvantage of social minorities as well as strengthening democratic processes, bottom-up social initiatives etc. Achieving objectives, both social and economic, requires using modern management instruments and methods.All of the above mentioned organizations or ventures, which achieve their local, social or ethical mission and goals using methods adopted from the business sector (Defourny, Hulgard, Pestoff, eds.2014). One of these methods is project management. The whole sector of social economy, both in Poland and in Europe, is strongly influenced by projectification process: a lot of the activities are performed in the form of projects. For last ten years projectification of social non-governmental sector as well as the economy sector in Poland was reinforced by EU’s funding stream – hundreds of co-funded projects, which aimed at increasing the level of development and improving the condition of social economy, were implemented. Some of these projects have resulted in the creation of durable, dynamically operating social enterprises, and some of them did not produce any long-term results. In case of successful projects, we can observe an unusual effect of projectification process: the creation of permanent structures, sustainable social economy organizations through the implementation of projects.Although we can identify examples of interesting research on impact of project work on NGOs (Brière, Proulx, Navaro, & Laporte, 2015); Golini, Kalchschmidt, Landoni, 2015) or critical success factors of non-governmental projects (Khang & Moe, 2008), there is a research gap which we would like to address in this paper: lack of research on project management best practices in social enterprises. Thus, the main research question we would like to investigate in the paper is: What are the factors that lead to creation of durable, permanent social economy enterprises from projects?This paper draws on set of qualitative data from broader research on social economy sector conducted in Poland in years 2011-2013 by researchers from the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). For the purpose of this paper we have conducted multiple case study analysis and analysed 36 case studies of existing social enterprises. One of our research goals was to find out, which factors are critical in the process of creation durable social enterprises from projects. Also, we wanted to understand how projectification, influenced strongly by the EU policies, changes the landscape of social enterprises in Poland and helps them achieve success.


Author(s):  
Francesco Sofo ◽  
Michelle Sofo

This chapter aims to raise awareness in leaders and practitioners on how critical thinking is embedded within the performance of virtual teams. The increasingly important nexus between critical thinking and team performance is demonstrated within the specific context of the virtual environment. The chapter is interspersed with brief case studies that demonstrate some of the experiences of Australian-based higher education staff in their efforts to incorporate both critical thinking and virtual teamwork into their pedagogy. A framework of success factors and challenges inherent to virtual teams and critical thinking is provided, which covers five influential factors: technology, student characteristics, educator characteristics, social aspects, and team dynamics. The chapter concludes with some directions for future research.


Author(s):  
Sandra Morley ◽  
Kathryn Cormican ◽  
Maébh Coleman

A wealth of research is associated with virtual teams and collaboration technologies; however, no integrated model is available to guide decision-makers at large organisations in the strategic implementation and management of “virtuality.” Whilst collaboration through technology has become commonplace in modern teams, it is not yet clear if Enterprise 2.0 organisations have made changes to accommodate and support this new mode of work. In other words, managing “virtuality” requires supporting tools and research in order to maximise the benefits and diminish the challenges inherent in it. This chapter presents findings of research relating to managing “virtualtiy” that culminates in the development and evaluation of a management model that guides large organisations in implementing and managing virtual teams. The findings demonstrate that there are benefits associated with virtual teamwork; however, a structured approach is essential to realise and maximise such benefits. The authors uncover several critical success factors in managing virtual teams, and they also learned that the implementation of enabling technologies must be carefully planned to ensure successful adoption by the intended audience. This chapter provides practitioners with a structured approach to implementing and managing virtual teams in an Enterprise 2.0 environment. Essential conditions for success are identified, specific organisational level tasks are presented, a process to ensure the introduction of new technologies is documented, and the critical success factors to create and manage virtual teams are synthesised and presented.


2017 ◽  
pp. 192-213
Author(s):  
Sandra Morley ◽  
Kathryn Cormican ◽  
Maébh Coleman

A wealth of research is associated with virtual teams and collaboration technologies; however, no integrated model is available to guide decision-makers at large organisations in the strategic implementation and management of “virtuality.” Whilst collaboration through technology has become commonplace in modern teams, it is not yet clear if Enterprise 2.0 organisations have made changes to accommodate and support this new mode of work. In other words, managing “virtuality” requires supporting tools and research in order to maximise the benefits and diminish the challenges inherent in it. This chapter presents findings of research relating to managing “virtualtiy” that culminates in the development and evaluation of a management model that guides large organisations in implementing and managing virtual teams. The findings demonstrate that there are benefits associated with virtual teamwork; however, a structured approach is essential to realise and maximise such benefits. The authors uncover several critical success factors in managing virtual teams, and they also learned that the implementation of enabling technologies must be carefully planned to ensure successful adoption by the intended audience. This chapter provides practitioners with a structured approach to implementing and managing virtual teams in an Enterprise 2.0 environment. Essential conditions for success are identified, specific organisational level tasks are presented, a process to ensure the introduction of new technologies is documented, and the critical success factors to create and manage virtual teams are synthesised and presented.


Virtual Teams ◽  
2011 ◽  
pp. 70-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Hornett

Practitioners and researchers need to pay attention to how corporate organizing structures are impacting and are impacted by virtual work environments. Virtual teams are powerful organizing mechanisms, but they are not without limitations. This chapter reports on two cases in which dynamics outside the virtual project teams powerfully affected the teams. These cases, both based on studies of real project teams operating inside corporations, highlight the desirability of understanding virtual teams in context. While external factors are not unique to teamwork, their role has not been explored in depth in research on virtual teams. Dynamic forces outside teams seem more difficult to anticipate and to identify when team members are working virtually, and these powerful but invisible dynamics can be frustrating to virtual team leaders and members. Concluded in this chapter is that contrary to initial expectations, virtual teams are not replacing traditional forms of organizing. They are coexisting with traditional forms and dynamics, such as business drivers, hierarchies, departments, strategic priorities, and business needs. This coexistence can be fraught with conflict.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document