Virtual Team Theories and Research

The author of this brief report has been tasked with comparing and contrasting two articles that are about the same subject. The general topic that is in question would be virtual teams. The drill-down sub-topic that will be the focus of this report will be the traits, norms, values and patterns of people and how this leads to alignment or discord in virtual teams. One of the two articles in question was published in Spring of 2004 and was authored by Brown, Scott-Poole and Rodgers. Hereafter, this article will be called the Brown article. The other article was published in 2013 and was written by Krumm, Terwiel and Hertel. The same set of questions will be answered for both articles and the answers or details that are revealed will be processed and synthesized. While there is a lot of agreement when it comes to the efficacy and workability of virtual teams, there is also agreement that many challenges exist and remain in many virtual team situations.

The general term that is used in both reports would be knowledge, skills and abilities. There is also the question as to whether those items will, should, can or tend to interface well in certain situations. The first primary question to be answered in this compare and contrast would be how the data is presented in the two articles. The Brown article is basically a literature review that makes use of a slew of references and correlations with other research. There is a figure or two within this narrative and review. However, direct verbiage and assembly of different data points is the norm in the Brown article. The Krumm article is much more scientific in nature. It also relies on much more tables, data summaries and so forth. Like the Brown article, there is a literature review. However, something that is very unique about the Krumm article, especially as compared to the Brown article, is that there is a table of factors related to intercultural competence. There are about 20-30 items and factors listed. For each item, there is a listing of the sources and references within which those factors are covered or mentioned. For example, the very first one is “ability and willingness to learn or adaptability”, which shows up in six of the references. Overall, there are many more tables in the Krumm work. The analysis and interpretation are thick and prevalent in both works. However, the manifestation of presentation is much more varied and elaborate in the Krumm work. Put another way, the data is mainly summarized in narrative form in the Brown work. Krumm makes use of tables and representations of the data so as to more quickly summarize what is present in the referenced works. That being said, both works reference a lot of exterior and prior research (Brown, Scott-Poole & Rodgers, 2004; Krumm, Terweil & Hertel, 2013).

There are certainly other ways that the data could have been interpreted. This is true of both works. However, there is an important distinction to be made. Indeed, simply summarizing and reviewing the work and assertions of others is fairly straightforward and hard to get wrong so long as one pays attention to what is actually being said. So long as the referenced works are clear and concise, there should be no mystery to the interpretations that are already present in the scholarly sphere. That being said, there can certainly be disagreements about whether those interpretations are informed or complete. Further, what comprises “consensus” on a given subject can be a subject of disagreement. IN terms of the narratives that are present, both works do a very decent job. However, the tables presented by Krumm paint a much clearer picture. This is not to say that Brown does a bad job. However, Krumm is clearly superior. The aforementioned table that indicates what ideas and theories come up the most is a sterling example of what makes the Krumm treatise a better offering in terms of being “sound” and convincing to any particular reader. Another clear demarcation between the two works is that there is no “limitations” section in the Brown work. However, there is most certainly such a section in the Krumm work. Indeed, Krumm offers three rather voluminous paragraphs about just that subject. There are also ideas presented by Krumm to inform and fill in the research in the future. Rather than just offer the opinions and assertions that they have to say, they are quite clear in what they see as issues and gaps in the relevant field. People might disagree as to whether those points are prescient or ignorant. However, at least Krumm tries to put such ideas out there (Brown, Scott-Poole & Rodgers, 2004; Krumm, Terweil & Hertel, 2013).

One thing that Brown does well is bridging the gap between research and practice. Indeed, Brown offers real-world examples of what he is talking about rather than just sticking to the theories and ideas themselves. This applicability to real-world situations is a great thing to be included in research like this. Krumm offers examples of his own, albeit in ways that are more abstract and generalized. The lesser amount of specificity with Krumm, however, is more than made up for in terms of the statistical analysis and presentation of data that is prevalent through his work. Both works are obviously focused on current research and they both use a great amount of resources and references to explain the current paradigm and offer their own theories and ideas about the subject of traits and such in the virtual team realm. As noted before, the Krumm article is superior when it comes to how this current paradigm should translate in terms of future research and what should happen in the coming years vis-à-vis virtual teams (Brown, Scott-Poole & Rodgers, 2004; Krumm, Terweil & Hertel, 2013).