Espacios. Vol. 35 (Nº 12) Año 2014. Pág. 8
Managing Global Projects: Collaboration and Conflicts in Virtual Teams
Gerenciando Projetos Globais: Colaboração e Conflitos em equipes virtuais
Nadia C. LIMA 1, Cristina SOUZA 2, Geraldo S. LIMA 3, Diego CARVALHO 4
Recibido: 04/08/14 • Aprobado: 25/10/14
Contenido
2. Collaboration in virtual teams
9. Profile of the virtual teams
10. Interaction among respondents in the virtual teams
11. Prioritizing the most relevant causes of conflict
12. Differences within the working team
13. Conflict among participants of a team that does not harm work objectives and deadlines
|
ABSTRACT: |
RESUMO: |
1. Introduction
Since the second half of the 20th Century, as a consequence of the decline of socialism and the worldwide spread of capitalism, there has been an intensification of the commercial transactions among countries, leading to a consequent economic, social and cultural integration. This phenomenon has been called globalization. This new world stage has caused significant changes in the scope of production, as well as in working relations, business rules and social life. Major corporations have amplified their range of influence throughout countries and continents, having as their great allies Information and communication technologies (ICTs). According to Verburg et. al. (2013), ICTs allow organizations to develop projects that extend their activities from traditional co-located settings to dispersed or virtual settings.
Within this environment, global projects have been developed. While domestic traditional projects occur locally, global projects cover several countries (Rodrigues, Sbragia, 2013) and are conducted by professionals from different nationalities and cultures (Govindarajan, Gupta, 2001). People working on the same project form team works. Gonzalez and Martins (2014) indicate three advantages of using team works: (i) these teams promote the integration of individuals and exchange of tacit knowledge; (ii) through team works, less experienced employees have opportunity to learn with the more experienced professionals; and (iii) the team works allow the integration of multi-disciplinary knowledge, facilitating the knowledge acquisition and utilization.
In the case of global projects, the main characteristic of the team works is the participation of professionals from distinct countries, but maintaining common objectives and goals in order to perform a specific job within a previously established time frame. In turn, the needs of this new business environment gave birth to a new format of work: the virtual teams (Schiller et. al. 2014). Virtual teams have become basic units in several organizations (Baruch , Lin, 2012) and are being used in different contexts such as R&D activities, customer support, software development, and product design (Wakefield et. al. 2008).
A virtual team can be defined by the geographic dispersion of its participants who work remotely and often use technological communications (Ayoko et. al. 2012; Hambley et. al. 2007; Martins et. al. 2004). Therefore, the members can be in different buildings, cities, states, countries, or continents. The team members also can belong to the same organization or to various ones. In other words, the teams can be transnational or global and/or composed of multiple organizations.
Lipnack , Stamps (2000) say that the use of technology on its own does not define a virtual team. The technology only represents a means for the virtual teams to establish and develop their tasks. Today, almost all work teams make use of technology and electronic communications to speed up their processes. In a virtual team, the task is the "fuel" that feeds and motivates the team to work together. Through the task, the participants share their knowledge, exchange information, and share both successes and failures in order to reach their goals. According to Nemiro (2004), although the virtual team members act separately, there is interdependence among them in order to accomplish the final objective. Therefore, it is a must that the members of a virtual team be connected both to the task at hand as well as on an interpersonal level.
Virtual teams managers have been facing big challenges in order to make sure that the specific traits of these teams will be maximized, emphasizing successful factors and, at the same time, minimizing negative impacts. Researchers claim there are several factors that interfere with the performance of a working team (Saafein, Shaykhian, 2014; Schiller et. al., 2014; Baruch , Lin, 2012; Ferreira et. al. 2012; and other studies). Some of the factors most cited in the literature are: collaboration among team members and conflict management.
Considering the growing use of virtual teams, there is a need to better understand this new model of social organization. Within this context, the paper aims to identify and analyze the factors that affect performance in a virtual team, specifically concerning team collaboration and conflict management. The study was based on the perception and evaluation of 68 professionals from eight different countries who participate of global projects of a transnational company of the Information Technology sector.
2. Collaboration in virtual teams
According to Nemiro (2008), for an organization to have maximum benefits from virtual teams, it is necessary that managers and participants change their modus operandi. The author considers that collaboration among members of a work team is a critical factor for the success of the group, which can be measured by the results obtained. In turn, Scharage (1990) say that collaboration is stimulated through the desire or necessity to solve a problem, and create or reach an objective.
The collaboration can be attained through three factors: strong relationships, trust, and shared understanding or comprehension. These factors raise the degree of collaboration in the virtual team environment, creating positive synergy that leads to greater productivity (Nemiro, 2008).
3. Relationship
The main characteristic of virtual teams is the lack of interpersonal interaction among their members with hardly any face-to-face contact, which might imply difficulties of comprehension and understanding among the participants, affecting the team relationship. Pursanova and Bono (2009) cite some limitations of the virtual communication: it is more confusing, laborious and demands more cognitively taxing than face-to-face communication; and it is poorer in nonverbal and paraverbal cues, which are important carriers of emotional communication. Greenberg et al. (2007) explain that virtual communications does not have the same richness of emotion and reaction than the face-to-face interaction. To reduce these limitations, several authors highlight the role of the leadership to obtain higher levels of team performance (Pursanova, Bono, 2009; Huang et. al. 2010; Balthazard et. al. 2009).
According to Walvoord et. al. (2008), the role of communication in a virtual team should not be reduced to the exchange of critical information among the participants. The communication process is also important in the building of interpersonal relationships. About this issue, Lee-Kelley and Sankey (2008) say that studies point out that some level of face-to-face contact between team members is necessary. However, there is not consensus in relation to the moment that this contact should be happen as well as in relation to the members who should realize this contact.
4. Trust
Trust is vital to any relationship, but it is especially critical in virtual teams (Greenberg et. al. 2007). Within the teamwork, trust contributes to reinforce the interdependence among team members, which is important for the fulfillment of personal and institutional goals (Schiller et. al. 2014). It also raises cooperation and reduces complexity. When talking about teamwork, creating confidence is based on believing that the team members are acting toward the benefit of the group, which is reflected in the group's actions and behavior. Trust is defined by Robbins (2005) as "the positive expectation that others will not act in an opportunistic way through opportunistic words, actions or decisions".
Lack of trust is one of the major obstacles within teams. Homans (1950) says trust must be built though a gradual process of interpersonal interaction. Therefore, trust among participants of a virtual team is a major challenge, since this mode of operation does not allow much interpersonal interaction when compared to a traditional team. Walther and Bunz (2005) presented 6 rules for overcoming trust development difficulties in virtual teams: starting trust as soon as possible; frequent communication among team members; initializing multiple tasks parallel to planning; clearly acknowledging that messages from other team members were received; being clear about assertions; and establishing realistic deadlines and fulfilling them.
5. Shared Understanding
Teams are interdependent by nature. The purpose of a team is to coordinate the efforts of each member in order to reach a common goal. Therefore, it is vital that the members of a team have shared understanding about the mission, tasks, team roles, processes and resources (Walvoord et. al. 2008). In turn, Ferioli and Migliarese (1996) say that a shared vision is critical to increase the cooperation among team members and to reduce ambiguity, uncertainty and conflicts (Lee et al., 2004). According to Liedtka (1996), shared comprehension or understanding includes not only goals and processes to be followed, but also knowledge of each member's experience, which allows team participants to anticipate how members of the group and the group as a whole will act and will tend to work. Shared understanding also promotes efficient use of resources, minimizing collective effort, reducing errors, and increasing the satisfaction and motivating of team members.
The shared understanding is a challenge when dealing with virtual teams due to the following specific features: geographic dispersion, intense use of technology, very little personal interaction, and cultural and linguistic differences. Some factors that can contribute to the shared understanding within a team are: similar background (Gibson , Cohen, 2003); learning from each other during a period of time; sharing information; and developing a team spirit. Sharing information is also seen as one of the factors that amplify shared understanding because it offers the possibility to discuss possible problems and to receive feedback.
6. Conflicts in virtual teams
Conflict is one of the most critical aspects related to virtual teams (Zaccaro , Bader, 2002) because it affects the performance of the group (Baba et. al., 2004; Aubert , Kesley, 2003). Boulding (1963) defines conflict as awareness of the discrepancies, incompatible wishes, or irreconcilable desires of the parties involved. The effect of such conflict and its resolution are crucial for the proper functioning of a group. As pointed out by Gelfand et al. (2012), "some organizations develop cultures in which conflict is managed productively, whereas others have cultures in which members consistently work against one another".
Solving conflict within a working team can bring productive and positive consequences if well managed. Some authors classify conflict using these categories: relationship conflict, process conflict, and task conflict. Relationship conflict is often defined by interpersonal conflicts, bitterness and disagreements among a group's individuals. This type of conflict can directly affect the performance and level of satisfaction of the team members, and reduce the possibility of the same group to work together again in the future (Jehn, 1995; Jehn , Mannix, 2001). Relationship conflict causes the team members lose focus on their tasks, reducing collaboration and cooperation among participants. This conflictual environment directly affects the productivity of the group as a whole.
A second modality of conflict is process conflict. It can be described as the disagreement of how a certain activity or task should be carried out or delegated (Jehn, 1997). Although this type of conflict is less researched, it can also create problems for the team's performance if not properly resolved. In turn, task conflict or cognitive conflict can be defined as difference in points of view or opinions regarding a task to be performed or completed by the group.) Teams that perform highly complex tasks can benefit from this type of conflict, because it leads the group's participants discuss for obtaining the best solution increasing the shared information and knowledge (Jehn , Mannix, 2001). Experts like Schwenk (1985) also say that the presence of cognitive conflict followed by an effective resolution should improve the performance of a working team.
Although there is a false idea that conflicts are more frequent in virtual teams than in traditional ones, research suggests that conflict is not necessarily more abundant in geographically dispersed teams (Mortensen and Hinds, 2001), since the nature of the conflict is different. But academics suggest that geographical distance among participants could be a factor in perpetuating conflict due to four important points: absence of shared context, team members who are not familiarized with one another, little or nonexistent friendship, and distance leading to a greater level of heterogeneity within the teams (Hinds , Bailey, 2003).
Traditionally there are 5 methods of conflict management (Thomas, 1976): (i) evasion or avoidance: where participants ignore the conflict, which may lead into a conflict of greater proportion; (ii) competition or confront: when each of the participants tries to maximize their own interests; (iii) accommodation or surrender: when one of the parties yields without much resistance. This type of reaction does not solve the conflict and may lead to frustration; (iv) compromise: when the differences are divided; and (v) collaboration or integration: the most profitable solution for all involved, a win-win. Usually an impartial third party mediates this method.
7. Method
This research is supported by a questionnaire focused on questions about conflict management and presented to a group of employees pertaining to an Information Technology transnational company, which is active in several countries. These employees participate as members of virtual teams in Brazil and abroad.
The questionnaire was elaborated in English and Google Doc was the web tool chosen for filling out the questionnaire due to the geographical distances. The link to the questionnaire was sent by e-mail to 200 possible participants selected for this case study. A total of 68 employees answered the questionnaire, which was applied during the period of 08/01/2013 to 08/15/2013. Considering the 200 questionnaires as the size of the sample, the error tolerance was approximately 8%.
The employees who answered the questionnaire were located in eight different countries covering three continents: America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, USA), Asia (China) and Europe (Bulgaria). The majority of respondents were from Brazil, followed by USA, Argentina and Mexico. Table 1 presents the number of respondents by country.
Country |
Total |
% |
Argentina |
10 |
15% |
Brazil |
31 |
46% |
Bulgaria |
1 |
1% |
Chile |
1 |
1% |
China |
1 |
1% |
Costa Rica |
2 |
3% |
México |
7 |
10% |
USA |
15 |
22% |
Total |
68 |
100% |
Table 1. Distribution of the respondents.
8. Results
Profile of the respondents
Table 2 shows the profile of the respondents covering the area of academic formation, the role they play within the work teams, and the previous experience in virtual teams.
Academic area |
Total |
% |
Exact Sciences |
62 |
91% |
Human Sciences |
4 |
6% |
Both |
2 |
3% |
Role in virtual team |
Total |
% |
Management |
34 |
50% |
Team Member |
34 |
50% |
Years of experience in virtual teams |
Total |
% |
0 – 02 years |
7 |
10% |
02 –05 years |
9 |
13% |
05–10 years |
26 |
38% |
10–15 years |
26 |
38% |
Table 2. Profile of the respondents.
The great majority of the respondents (97%) belong to the area of Exact Sciences. Few respondents have academic formation in Human Sciences. This result can be explained because these professionals work in the area of information technology, which demands knowledge and competences more associated with the Exact Sciences.
When considering the role that the respondents play within their working teams, the distribution was equal. Half participate as managers and half as members of a virtual team. The activities that the members carry out in their team are the following: testers, developers, applications maintenance, quality control, Information Technology audits, business analysts and database administrators.
In relation to time of experience, 76% of the respondents have participated of virtual teams for more than 5 years.
9. Profile of the virtual teams
The respondents have participated of several virtual teams. In order to better understand the profile of these virtual teams, two questions were directed to identify the size and diversity of nationalities of the members of the groups. The results are presented in the Table 3.
Number of people in the virtual team |
Total |
% |
2 – 5 people |
6 |
9% |
05 – 12 people |
22 |
32% |
12 – 20 people |
13 |
19% |
More than 20 people |
27 |
40% |
Diversity of nationalities |
Total |
% |
No |
20 |
29% |
Yes |
48 |
71% |
Table 3. Profile of the virtual teams.
The results indicated that over half of those who answered the questionnaire participate of virtual teams with more than 12 team members (59%). Regarding the nationality, the majority (71%) work on teams with different nationalities. As the teams involve people from different countries and nationalities, it is important to consider the language used in the development of the work. The majority of participants (more than 56%) answered that the language used within the team is not their native language.
10. Interaction among respondents in the virtual teams
The study verified interactions between respondents and others team members observing the frequency of virtual contacts, how the tasks are executed (individually or as a group), and how often they physically meet (face-to-face). Table 4 shows the results of these questions.
Virtual meetings among team members |
Total |
% |
Daily |
14 |
20% |
Weekly |
46 |
68% |
Monthly |
2 |
3% |
Without regularity |
6 |
9% |
Face-to-face meetings |
Total |
% |
Never |
16 |
23% |
Only once |
27 |
40% |
More than once |
13 |
19% |
Regularly |
12 |
18% |
Tasks execution |
Total |
% |
Individually |
7 |
10% |
In groups or in pairs |
13 |
19% |
Depending on the type of task |
48 |
71% |
Table 4. Interactions between respondents of the virtual teams
Results show that most of the respondents (about 68%) have weekly meetings with other participants of their virtual teams. Only 23% of the respondents never had a face-to-face meeting with other team members, even though the majority of those interviewed (71%) work with individuals of different nationalities. Regarding interactions among team members for the purpose of performing or executing tasks, 71% of the respondents point to the task itself as the main factor that will guide how the work will be performed: that is individually, in groups, or in pairs.
11. Prioritizing the most relevant causes of conflict
Among factors that contribute to conflicts in virtual teams, five main ones were chosen. These factors were presented to the respondents and they were asked to order them according to their relevance in creating conflict. They would choose from options varying from "not important" to "tremendous importance". The five factors considered were: (1) cultural and social differences; (2) divergence how execute technical activity; (3) different behavior patterns; (4) communication problem among the team members; and (5) there is not a clear definition of roles and responsibilities for the team. The result indicating the main sources of conflicts is illustrated in the Figure 1.
Figure 1. Main sources of conflict pointed out by respondents
Respondents pointed out cultural difference as the least relevant factor causing conflict on their virtual teams while communication problems and lack of clear definition of roles and responsibilities were cited as the most relevant factors causing conflict.
12. Differences within the working team
The respondents were presented with the question of how differences are usually resolved among members on their virtual team. There were 3 possible answers and they could choose more than one option: (1) team members discuss directly using communication channels (e-mail, messages, phone and others); (2) meetings of manager /supervisor with team members; and (3) during periodic meeting of all team members. The respondents preferred to answer this question with more than one option or through associating options. The results are listed in the Table 5.
Differences among team members |
Total |
% |
Members discuss directly using communication channels (a) |
18 |
27% |
Meetings of manager /supervisor with team members (b) |
8 |
12% |
During periodic meeting of all team members (c) |
4 |
6% |
Two options chosen (b) and (c) |
2 |
3% |
Two options chosen (a) and (b) |
7 |
10% |
Two options chosen (a) and (c) |
5 |
7% |
Three options chosen (a), (b) and (c) |
23 |
35% |
Table 5. Differences among team members
13. Conflict among participants of a team that does not harm work objectives and deadlines
In this topic the question sought to identify how the respondents react in the presence of any kind of conflict that does not harm the team's work, goals, and deadlines. The following four possible answers were presented, but again they could choose more than one option or even add an option they considered to be more fit for the situation: (a) I ignore the matter; (b) I direct it to my manager/coordinator; (c) I observe how the things develop and help to find a solution; and (d) I observe how the things develop without interfering. Table 6 presents the answers related to this question.
Reaction in the presence of conflicts |
Total |
% |
I ignore the matter (a) |
3 |
4% |
I direct it to my manager/coordinator (b) |
3 |
4% |
I observe how the things develop and help to find a solution (c) |
33 |
49% |
I observe how the things develop without interfering (d) |
11 |
16% |
Two options (b) e (c) |
9 |
13% |
Two options (c) e (d) |
4 |
7% |
Contrary options (a) e (c) |
3 |
4% |
New answers |
2 |
3% |
Table 6. Reaction in the presence of conflicts among team members
The results for this question showed that only 4% of the participants chose to ignore and stay away from the ongoing conflict. Besides the proposed answers, respondents also presented two new options:
- I hear out the situation and offer information or advice when solicited.
- I observe how things develop and help to find a solution and to adjust differences of task and responsibilities.
When the reaction "I observe how things develop and help to find a solution (c)" is more carefully analyzed, it is possible to observe that it was mentioned by 69% of respondents, reflecting an attitude of collaboration toward solving the conflict.
14. Final considerations
Many factors can affect productivity in virtual teams. This study has chosen to focus on collaboration and conflicts. Although many authors defend cultural differences as an important conflict inducing factor, the group of respondents pointed out cultural difference as of little relevance when considering potential conflict causes, even though 71% of the respondents participate in teams with individuals of different nationalities. This fact confirms studies' statements that there are not necessarily more conflicts in teams geographically dispersed (Mortensen and Hinds, 2001), since the nature of conflict is different.
The main factors pointed out by the respondents as of great relevance in causing conflict were: lack of clear definition of team roles and responsibilities and communication difficulties. When analyzing these points as major causes of conflict, it is important to mention that most respondents work in teams that communicate with a different language than their native one. This fact in itself can cause difficulties of good understanding among team members, leading to possible conflicts. Nemiro (2008) confirms this result by asserting that good communication plays a vital role in the aspect of collaboration among team members. Through collaboration, a team's conflicts can be reduced and also managed in a better way.
The result of this case study also showed that the majority of respondents have a tendency toward collaborative reaction when in presence of conflict in their teams. The option "I observe how things develop and help to find a solution" was chosen by 69% of the respondents. Although the sample was composed of teams of people of different nationalities, about 84% have met face-to-face at least once with other team members. This is a very positive factor leading to integration and familiarization of team participants because it raises collaboration among team members and positively influences towards smaller rates of interpersonal conflicts. Other important fact is that 76% of interviewed have been working in virtual team for more than 5 years, which suggest that they have opportunity to more experience and ability to handle conflict.
The authors hope that these findings may contribute to a better understanding and management of virtual teams. However, it would be interesting to continue the study and expand the survey to other virtual groups that operate in different companies and economic sectors.
15. References
Aubert, B.A., Kesley, B.L. (2003); Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 34, 575–618.
Ayoko, B.O., Konrad, M.A., Boyle, V.M. (2012); Online work: Managing conflict and emotions for performance in virtual teams. European Management Journal, 30, 156–174.
Baba, M.L., Gluesing, J., Ratner, H., Wagner, K.H. (2004); The contexts of knowing: Natural history of a globally distributed team. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 547–587.
Balthazard, P.A., Waldman, D.A., Warren, J.E. (2009); Predictors of the emergence of transformational leadership in virtual decision teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 651–663.
Baruch, Y., LIN, C-P. (2012); All for one, one for all: Coopetition and virtual team performance. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 79, 1155–1168.
Boulding, K. (1963); Conflict and Defense: A General Theory. Harper, San Francisco.
Ferioli, C., Migliarese, P. (1996); Supporting organizational relations through information technology in innovative organizational forms. European Journal of Information Systems, 5, 196–207.
Ferreira, P.G.S., De Lima, E.P., Da Costa, S.E.G. (2012); Perception of virtual team's performance: A multinational exercise. International Journal of Production Economics, 140, 416–430.
GELFAND, M., Leslie, L., Keller, K., De Dreu, C. (2012); Conflict Cultures in Organizations: How Leaders Shape Conflict Cultures and Their Organizational Level Consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1131–1147.
Gibson, C.B., Cohen, S.G. (2003). Virtual teams that work. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Gonzalez, R.V.D., MARTINS, M.F. (2014); Knowledge Management: an Analysis From the Organizational Development. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 9(1), 131–147.
GOVINDARAJAN, V., Gupta, A.K. (2001); Building an Effective Global Business Team. Sloan Management Review, 43(2), 63–71.
Greenberg, P.S., Greenberg, R.H., Antonucci, Y.L. (2007). Creating and sustaining trust in virtual teams. Business Horizons, 50, 325–333.
Hambley, L., O'Neil, T., Kline, T. (2007);Virtual team leadership: The effects of leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 1–20.
HINDS, P.J., Bailey, D.E. (2003); Out of sight, out of synch: understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14, 615–632.
Homans, C.G. (1950). The Human Group. New Brunswich, New Jersey.
Huang, R., Kahai, S., Jestice, R. (2010). The contingent effects of leadership on team collaboration in virtual teams. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1098–1110.
Jehn, K. (1995); A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282.
Jehn, K. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530–557.
Jehn, K., Mannix, E.A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238–251.
Lee, J.C., Lo, L.N., Walker, A. (2004). Partnership and change for school development. In: Lee, J.C., Lo, L.N., Walker, A. (Eds.), Partnership and Change for School Development, The Chinese University Press, Hong Kong, pp. 1–30.
Lee-Kelley, L., Sankey, T. (2008). Global virtual teams for value creation and project success: A case study. International Journal of Project Management, 26, 51–62.
Liedtka, J.M. (1996). Collaborating across lines of business for competitive advantage. Journal Academy of Management Executive, 10(2), 20–34.
Lipnack, J., Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams: people working across boundaries with technology, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York.
Martins, L.L., Gilson, L.L., Maynard, M.T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and how do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805–835.
Mortensen, M., Hinds, P.J. (2001). Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(3), 212–238.
Nemiro, J. (2004). Creativity in Virtual Teams: Key Components for Success, Pfeiffer, San Francisco.
Nemiro, J., (2008). The Handbook of High Performance Virtual Teams: A Toolkit for Collaborating Across Boundaries, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco.
Purvanova, R.K., Bono, J.E. (2009). Transformational leadership in context: Face-to-face and virtual teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 343–357.
ROBBINS, S.P. (2005). Comportamento Organizacional, Pearson, São Paulo.
RODRIGUES, I., Sbragia, R. (2013). The Cultural Challenges of Managing Global Project Teams: a Study of Brazilian Multinationals. Journal of Technology Management Innovation, 8 (special issue ALTEC), 38–52.
SAAFEIN, O., Shaykhian, G.A. (2014). Factors affecting virtual team performance in telecommunication support environment. Telematics and Informatics, 31, 459–462.
SCHARAGE, M. (1990). Shared minds: The new technologies of collaboration. Random House, New York.
SCHILLER, S.Z., Mennecke, B.E., Nah, F.F-H., Luse, A. (2014). Institutional boundaries and trust of virtual teams in collaborative design: An experimental study in a virtual world environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 565–577.
SCHWENK, C.R. (1985). The Use of Participant Recollection in Modelling of Organization Decision Processes. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 496–503.
THOMAS, K. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In: Dunette, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 2, Rand McNally, Chicago.
VERBURG, R., Sijtsema, P., Vartiainen, M. (2013). Getting it done: Critical success factors for project managers in virtual work settings. International Journal of Project Management, 31, 68–79.
WAKEFIELD, R.L., Leider, D.E., Garrison, G. (2008). A Model of Conflict, Leadership, and Performance in Virtual Teams. Research Note. Information System Research, 19(4), 434–455.
WALTHER, J. B., & Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication. 828–846
WALVOORD, A.A.G., Redden, E.R., Elliott, L.R., Coovert, M.D. (2008). Empowering followers in virtual teams: Guiding principles from theory and practice. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1884–1906.
1. Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica Celso Suckow da Fonseca - Cefet RJ -Rio de Janeiro – Brasil. Email: nadiasclima@hotmail.com
2. Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica Celso Suckow da Fonseca - Cefet RJ - Rio de Janeiro – Brasil. Email: crisgsouza@gmail.com
3. Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica Celso Suckow da Fonseca - Cefet RJ -Rio de Janeiro – Brasil. Email: geraldoslimaf@outlook.com
4. Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica Celso Suckow da Fonseca - Cefet RJ - Rio de Janeiro – Brasil. Email: d.carvalho@ieee.org