Challenges of Virtual Groups
Lack of face-to-face interactions presents virtual small groups with several challenges. First, the physical distance separating members restricts their nonverbal communication. If you can’t see your team members’ facial expressions and body postures, you don’t know if they’re smiling and nodding in agreement or if they’re confused or bored. This lack of feedback makes it hard to know how the team feels about what is being said. Even when using videoconferencing and webcams, people can still feel cut off from the group, which can lead to their getting caught up in other activities during a virtual meeting that disrupt their concentration, such as eating or checking social media feeds (Mattioli, 2008).
Second, it’s hard to build cohesion in a virtual team. In interviews with members of a virtual group working for a travel company, one study found that the group experienced mistrust, limited rapport, and feelings of isolation (Kirkman, Rosen, Gibson, Tesluk, & McPherson, 2002). To offset these problems, virtual team members should occasionally meet face-to-face if at all possible. These interactions are essential for building interpersonal relationships and strengthening cohesion. When it’s not possible to arrange face-to-face meetings, virtual teams can benefit from icebreaker activities early in a meeting, such as introducing themselves by self-disclosing a fact that others may find surprising (Nunamaker, Reinig, & Briggs, 2009) or engaging in small talk in later meetings once everyone knows one another.
Third, it’s difficult to communicate complex information and to make decisions during online meetings. Even with lots of different resources to enable interaction—including instant messaging and video-conferencing systems—groups can suffer from missed or delayed messages, misinterpretations, and other issues. Some media are better than others for overcoming these challenges. Table 11.3 considers the advantages and disadvantages of common tools intended to support virtual small group communication. Use this table to determine the best way to reach out to other members of a virtual group, depending on your communication goals.
E-MAIL
(e.g., Gmail & Microsoft Outlook) Useful for exchanging routine information and brainstorming ideas Lacks nonverbal information Less effective for conveying complex information |
TELECONFERENCE
(e.g., conference calls & instant messaging) Useful for exchanging routine information and increasingly complex information Lack of visual nonverbal information (i.e., facial expressions and gestures) Difficult to maintain team members’ attention and engagement |
VIDEOCONFERENCE
(e.g., Skype & Cisco WebEx) Provides access to verbal and nonverbal information Useful for communicating complex information and decisions Requires all team members to have the same technology Subject to technical diffi culties (user error or equipment failure) |
PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOLS
(e.g., Google Docs & wikis) Useful for compiling research findings and collaborating on reports Requires moderate training Team members must continually check the site to contribute and view others’ contributions (Nunamaker, Reinig, & Briggs, 2009) |
Table 11.2: TABLE 11.3 COMMON TOOLS FOR VIRTUAL SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION2
1. Marish/Shutterstock; 2. Domofon/Shutterstock; Vector/Shutterstock
LearningCurve can help you review! Go to macmillanhighered.com/choicesconnections2e.
Finally, team members may vary greatly in their ability to use the group’s chosen communication technology. Perhaps a member lacks access to high-speed Internet, or another member’s computer crashes during a Web conference. All virtual groups need backup plans in case such problems occur. They should also make sure that every member knows how to participate in any conferencing programs, such as those developed by WebEx or Citrix. If you’re forming a virtual team, take steps early on to see that everyone has both access to and the ability to use any necessary technology.