From virtual teams to virtuality in teams

Abstract

In this article we propose to go beyond the dichotomy of virtual vs collocated teams to look instead at virtuality in teams. In so doing, we argue that technology-mediated interactions do not substitute but rather complement face-to-face interactions.We adopt a definition of virtuality in teams based on discontinuities and pursue an understanding of their dynamics in an in-depth case study of an inter-organizational virtual centre of excellence.The findings present evidence suggesting the formation of ‘virtual continuities’ that mitigate the effects that create discontinuities. This, we argue, enriches our understanding of the complex dynamics of virtuality. The theoretical implications are discussed.

The Evolution of the Virtuality Phenomenon in Organisations: A Critical Literature Review

“…There are a total of 12 studies which are relatively popular, constituting 49.43% of the definitions used in the reviewed articles. The direction of literature has gone beyond the dichotomous view of virtual teams vs. traditional teams to a continuum of team virtuality (Dixon & Panteli, 2010). The earlier literature contains definitions from both perspectives.…”

Modeling team knowledge sharing and team flexibility: The role of within-team competition

“…Hybrid-virtual teams, compared with pure virtual teams, are teams that rely on both technology-supported virtual channels and face-to-face contacts (Dixon and Panteli, 2010;Fiol and O'Connor, 2005). Virtual platforms of team management are becoming increasingly pervasive in many intra-organizational and interorganizational forms (Kirkman et al, 2004;O'Leary and Cummings, 2007;O'Leary and Mortensen, 2010).…”

Academy of Management 2011 Annual Meeting.

“…However, innovation is often a distributed phenomenon taking place across networks in an industry, e.g., in building design and construction (Boland et al, 2007), within consortia of multiple organizations (e.g., Kodama, 2002) and academic-industry partnerships (e.g., Dixon & Panteli, 2010).…”

“…We define this disruption as a discontinuity. For example, Dixon & Panteli (2010) presented a case study of a UK-based academic-industry partnership established to create exploitable knowledge and technologies by developing a portfolio of research projects and create linkages across projects. In this setting, they found discontinuities stemming from the different work practices, priorities and culture that members brought from their 'home' organizations (Dixon & Panteli, 2010).…”

“…For example, Dixon & Panteli (2010) presented a case study of a UK-based academic-industry partnership established to create exploitable knowledge and technologies by developing a portfolio of research projects and create linkages across projects. In this setting, they found discontinuities stemming from the different work practices, priorities and culture that members brought from their 'home' organizations (Dixon & Panteli, 2010). Their findings are consistent with other research that has found communication and setting priorities are often problematic in academic-industry collaborations (Pertuzé, Calder, Greitzer, & Lucas, 2010;Walsh & Maloney, 2007).…”