Virtual Teams vs. Face-to-Face Teams: Key Differences

Introduction

With the arrival of the Digital Era, businesses have increasingly turned to virtual teams. Virtual teams consist of employees who work together on a project but may never meet one another face to face, as they are situated in different parts of the world and connected only by the Internet. They can hold virtual meetings, share information via direct messages or a workplace portal, and interact in ways that largely mirror face-to-face teams. The key difference is that they are never in the same place together and, as a result, are not as influenced by workplace culture as face-to-face teams are. That distinction alone presents significant challenges when determining how to lead a virtual team. This paper discusses the similarities and differences between virtual teams and face-to-face teams, identifies the development stages of teams, describes the factors in virtual teams that result in or inhibit success, and recommends best practices for leading a virtual team.

Similarities and Differences Between Team Types

The similarities between virtual teams and face-to-face teams are that both consist of individuals who work together on a single project, communicate as necessary, and assign each member a specific role or task. Team members in both types are answerable to a team leader, who in turn is accountable to a department manager, and so on. The hierarchy of the chain of command still exists, and reports are still required of both. The ability to communicate exists in both as well, though it differs in form: virtual team members rely mainly on message boards, threads, emails, or video conferencing, while face-to-face teams have the opportunity to speak in person. In both cases, the team exists for a defined purpose, and when the project is completed the team will likely be disbanded, though members may be retained for further work on different projects.

The main difference is one of space and time. Virtual team members may be separated by distance and time zones, making even virtual meetings difficult, as waking hours for one portion of the team may coincide with sleeping hours for another. For a face-to-face team, everyone is in the same geographic location and can attend a scheduled meeting in person. While this may not seem like a substantial issue, it does make a difference in terms of the team coming together and gelling as a unit. Part of Tuckman's five stages of teamwork, after all, is the forming stage, where members come together, voice their concerns, listen to one another, and offer support and encouragement (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). This first stage of team development cannot be accomplished in a traditional sense if a virtual team is spread around the world.

Another difference is that face-to-face teams have the opportunity to make fuller use of emotional intelligence (EI). This skill allows individuals to pick up on body language and non-verbal forms of communication in order to better understand what another person is expressing (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). The use of EI is largely impractical in a virtual team, as most communication is textual rather than visual. For this reason, anything of importance must be communicated literally and precisely by all members, since subtle cues and non-verbal expressions cannot be conveyed when team members are not physically present with one another.

Development Stages of Teams

The five stages of team development according to Tuckman are: (a) forming, (b) storming, (c) norming, (d) performing, and (e) adjourning (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977).

The first stage is the forming stage, which focuses on the moment when the group comes together for the first time. At this point, the group consists of individuals who may be new to one another and may have concerns or fears about the project. This is the time for team members to voice those worries without fear of judgment. It is important to take advantage of the forming stage to allow team members to do this so that issues do not lie dormant, waiting for the first crack in the team's unity to surface as a crisis. By getting everyone's concerns out in the open at the beginning, the team leader can be alert to each member's needs and attentive to ways in which those needs can be met, helping to push members toward the self-actualizing level of motivation needed for success (Maslow, 1943). The objective of the forming stage is to enable team members to express sympathy, positivity, empathy, and support, regardless of the issue at hand. Team members must feel supported from the beginning, as this more than anything else helps to relieve a great deal of stress.

The second stage is the storming stage, where the team's leader comes into focus. The leader may not always be the designated team head. Sometimes it is a member who is particularly motivated and driven—one who communicates the passion and vision that other members need in order to stay engaged. This type of member becomes the de facto leader, and everyone on the team recognizes and accepts it.

The third stage is norming, during which the group finally begins to gel and solidify. Everyone understands their role and is actively pursuing it. There are no more rough spots to smooth out, and the main task is simply to stay focused and communicative. Support can be offered when needed.

The fourth stage is performing, which is reached when the team begins operating at full capacity. Team members can see the light at the end of the tunnel and are committed to reaching it in a timely manner. Everyone is fulfilling their roles professionally.

The fifth stage is adjourning, during which team members acknowledge one another's contributions. This is an important part of the process, because appreciation is a key element of motivation and allows workers to move on to the next project feeling confident in their abilities and eager to take on new challenges (Gerhart & Fang, 2015). Before the team disbands, it is important to recognize the role that everyone has played and to celebrate the accomplishment together. This strengthens morale and provides incentive to achieve more.

Conclusion

Virtual teams are like face-to-face teams in numerous ways: they both have a specific goal to achieve, the members of both have specific roles to play, there is a clear hierarchy in the chain of command, and communication is vital for the success of both. Where they differ is in their relationship to the physical workplace and its culture. A virtual team is essentially isolated: its members may never truly get to know one another beyond threads, emails, and similar exchanges. For that reason, leaders must embrace the challenges of time and space and engage virtual team members through continuous feedback and open channels of interaction, so that members can provide support for one another just as they would in a face-to-face team. With Tuckman's five stages of team development in mind, team leaders should make deliberate efforts to incorporate those stages into the management of virtual teams as well.

References

Chang, S. C., & Lee, M. S. (2007). A study on relationship among leadership, organizational culture, the operation of learning organization and employees' job satisfaction. The Learning Organization, 14(2), 155–185.

Fang, C., Chen, Y., & Wang, C. (2014). E-leadership effectiveness in virtual teams: Motivating language perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(3), 421–437.

Gerhart, B., & Fang, M. (2015). Pay, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, performance, and creativity in the workplace: Revisiting long-held beliefs. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 489–521.

Hauser, L. (2014). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Economics, Management and Financial Markets, 9(4), 239–246.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 197–215.

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427.