Contrast between face-to-face teams vs. virtual teams

For most organizations today, it represents a challenge to stay competitive. Beyond the competition related to products and services that go directly to the consumer, human resources are a determining variable. Suriya et al. (2002) mention that since the beginning of the 21st century, globalization, the incursion and changes of technology, and changes in communication technologies have impacted the way of operating from individual task organizations to one based more on work in a team and even more in virtual teams. This paper discusses the contrast between face-to-face teams vs. virtual teams in terms of their characteristics and stages of development, as well as similarities and differences between modalities and successes, failures, and best practices.

Work teams have become the central operating axis of organizations. Lowman (2022) distinguishes between a group and a team. A group is perceived as a union of individuals, while a team is perceived as a group of people who have a shared mission, who need to interact, and who have varied experiences among them. In this sense, diversity in knowledge, attitudes, abilities, and experiences allows creativity and the search for solutions to problems (Rico et al., 2010). Staples and Zhao (2006) suggest that teams provide productive ways to achieve goals like skills, talents, and perspectives. These variables, in turn, impact the performance and satisfaction of its members.

Virtual work is not a new modality; perhaps it was not promoted as much as face-to-face work. When talking about face-to-face work, it is understood that it is the modality of working from an office in the company. In the case of virtual teams are those people who belong to a team that works geographically dispersed, temporarily via electronic communications (Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020). For example, video conferences and chat rooms are technological communication forms used for this work team. Collaboration is synchronous, where everyone connects virtually simultaneously to work on projects or tasks and asynchronously in a certain way; even if working in a virtual team, the connection in unison is limited or null.

Characteristics and Stages of Development

When discussing an individual’s behavior in a work environment, the challenges relate to characteristics and stages. These aspects are essential since, in the functioning of a team, communication, camaraderie, and cohesion must be present (Lowman, 2022). For example, Rico et al. (2010), when discussing the characteristics of virtual work team members, highlight the team’s composition, emphasizing the number of members and the importance of knowledge and skills. They also add aspects related to organizational and natural culture, the perception of effectiveness, team identity, cohesion, trust and confidence, and selective cognition. In this sense, Warketin (1997) agrees with Rico et al. (2010) that cohesion, relational links between its members, and cultural diversity are essential when setting up a virtual team. More recently, Breuer (2019) highlights and reaffirms what Warketin (1997) and Rico et al. (2010) had validated about trust as a characteristic that implies success in the development of collaboration.

For their part, Morison and Ruiz (2020) speak of common ground, referring to people who have already worked together and have similar experiences. These can be related to the characteristics of cohesion, trust, and relational links that Warketin (1997), Rico et al. (2010), and Breuer (2019) presented. Similar mental models and the fact that they can effectively communicate regarding the language are other variables that Morison and Ruiz (2020) consider as additional characteristics of virtual team members. In this sense, one can observe similar characteristics regardless of the work modality, face-to-face or virtual.

When talking about the stages, Suriya et al. (2002) compare different models for virtual team development: Tuckman’s sequential stages, Punctuated Equilibrium, and McGrath’s Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP) model. Punctuated Equilibrium focuses on the team working on their task, which includes three Project brief sections, a midpoint, and two periods of transitions. McGrath’s Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP) model integrates three functions, production, well-being, and member support, combined with what is known as functional modes: inception, problem-solving, conflict, resolution, and execution. Finally, Tuckman describes the team development stages as forming, storming, norming, and performing (Suriya et al. (2002; Caper, 2017). Suriya et al. identify Tuckman’s’ model as the best to be applied in virtual groups, according to Suriya et al. (2002). Aquino (2022) validates what was previously stated by Suriya (2002) when, in his study, he concludes that using Tuckman’s model promoted cohesion and minimized conflicts. Team members were able to maintain the expected productivity. Like the characteristics, the stages are associated with both formats: local or face-to-face and virtual.

Team’s Similarities and Differences

Both for face-to-face teams and virtual teams, the application of leadership styles to manage projects is present (Puranova, 2009). The leadership style can vary. Puranova (2009) concludes that transformational leadership is most effective for virtual teams. This type of leadership includes influencing, motivating, intellectual stimulation, and individual considerations (Mysirlak & Paraskeva, 2020). Virtual team dynamics require strong member relationships. Transformational leadership makes employees feel more known and appreciated than traditional face-to-face team management (Puranova, 2009). Mysirlak & Paraskeva (2020) support these findings, concluding that transformational leadership positively impacts virtual team effectiveness, satisfaction, viability, and performance. Leadership guides task planning and fulfillment. While face-to-face teams permit more diverse leadership approaches, virtual teams benefit specifically from transformational leadership strategies.

Face-to-face and virtual teams differ in communication effectiveness (Puranova, 2009). Puranova notes that virtual teams face more complex communication challenges. Verbal and non-verbal communication, along with social-emotional information, become particularly difficult due to limited team interaction time, which hinders understanding of gesture-based communication. This can increase member misunderstandings and affect team functioning (Suriya et al., 2002). Morrizon-Smith & Ruiz (2020) emphasize that communication involves understanding words and body language. In face-to-face teams, confusion regarding a gesture or word interpretation can be addressed immediately because team members have established strong interpersonal bonds that enable direct communication clarification and mutual understanding. Regional variations and generational differences significantly impact communication, even within the same country. These communication challenges manifest in both face-to-face and virtual scenarios but are exponentially more difficult to navigate in virtual environments.

Another variable to review is the cultural aspect, which impacts both work modalities. Cultural diversity can also create a competitive advantage for the organization (Goel, 2018). A diverse workforce brings different perspectives, approaches, and solutions. The cultural aspect includes differences in nationality, values, attitudes, and beliefs (Staples & Zhao, 2006; Morrizon-Smith & Ruiz, 2020). In this sense, it is necessary to recognize them and know how to manage them within the work team to avoid affecting their communication, productivity, and performance. From a cultural point of view, Staples and Zhao (2006) point out the surface-level and deep-level characteristics. The first one mirrors nationality, race, ethnic factors, and native language; the second one varies depending on countries and cultural values. This can guide the way of thinking, expectations, and behavior. Shaik (2021) helps to clarify the cultural challenges in virtual teams, mentioning, for example, comprehending multiple speech patterns, diversity of time zones, and developing interpersonal relationships. He also contributes to the concept of cultural intelligence, which includes an individual’s ability to adapt to new cultural settings. The results of his study revealed that employees are more inclined towards cultural nationality than that of the organization and that cultural intelligence solidifies according to the confidence that the team acquires. In this sense, the team must realize cultural differences and be open to understanding and working with them.

Successes, failures, and best practices

Some factors can undoubtedly be identified as successful and represent best practices when discussing a virtual team’s development, operation, and performance. Studies have consistently emphasized the need for trust in the virtual work modality (Warketin, 1997; Rico et al., 2010; Breuer, 2019; Garro-Abarca, 2021). This does not mean that this variable is not essential in face-to-face teams. Even the recent study by Garro-Abarca (2021) places it in order of priority as number one. Trust can be interpreted in different ways from the perspective of interpersonal relationships; trust is due to the experience that the person brings to the work team, and trust has to do with controls. Trust is directly linked to the performance and success of virtual teams (Breuer, 2019; Garro-Abarca, 2021).

Leadership is another best practice that applies to the success of a virtual team’s performance (Puranova, 2009; Mysirlak & Paraskeva, 2020; Garro-Abarca, 2021). Leadership helps to develop plans, distribute tasks, to empower team members. Communication is another critical element; This includes effective communication, clear instructions, and communication between members of the same team.

On the other hand, some factors that can represent a challenge or become failures if not effectively addressed are the technology management or knowledge from the team members and the type of software for communication and task execution (Garro-Abarca, 2021). This type of challenge could be the same for virtual and face-to-face Teams. Also, not adapting to diverse cultural settings limits members communication, relationship development, and trust (Shaik, 2021). Affecting trust, the primary variable in virtual work teams, presupposes failure. On the other hand, considering leadership styles, limiting a single style as effective (transformational), when the organization starts a recruitment process for new or vacant positions, recruitment may be affected because of the specificity needed for the virtual team. On the contrary, acquiring employees with different leadership styles in face-to-face groups is typical and healthy for the organization.

Ethical aspects are also related to trust. There is inherent freedom of remote or unobserved supervision. The relationship of trust that develops between the supervisor and the employee is what Garro-Abarca (2021) mentions when he argues that employee in virtual teams should do their tasks. The control experienced in a face-to-face team is not needed throughout the process. The tools that can evaluate whether the tasks are being carried out or not, for example, are precisely the deliverables according to the plan established. Indeed, not every type of employee can be part of a virtual team, and not every supervisor can lead a virtual team.

Conclusion

It has been possible to present the contrast between face-to-face teams vs. virtual teams in terms of their characteristics and stages of development, as well as similarities and differences between modalities and successes, failures, and best practices. The particularities of the virtual team lie in the specific leadership style needed to manage these teams and the trust that binds communication aspects, having a multiplier effect on the development of relationships and cultural elements.

Since this type of modality continues to grow, it would be necessary to continue its study by looking at whether the variables presented continue to be consistent or if significant changes are identified.

References

Aquino, J. F., Riss, R. R., Multerer, S. M., Mogilner, L. N., & Turner, T. L. (2022). A step-by-step guide for mentors to facilitate team building and communication in virtual teams. Medical Education Online, 27(1), 1–6. https://doi.org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/10872981.2022.2094529

Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., Hibben, J., Hertel. G. (2019). Trust in teams: a taxonomy of perceived trustworthiness factors and risk-taking behaviors in faceto-face and virtual teams. Germany human relations, 73(1) 3–34. DOI: 10.1177/0018726718818721

Casper, W. C. (2017). Teaching beyond the topic teaching teamwork skills in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 17(6), 53-63.

Garro-Abarca, V. (2021). Virtual teams in times of pandemic: factors that influence performance. Frontiers in psychology, 12 , 624637.

Morrison-Smith, S. & Ruiz, J. (2020). Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: a literature review.SN Appl. Sci. 2, 1096. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2801-5

Mysirlaki, S., & Paraskeva, F. (2020). Emotional intelligence and transformational leadership in virtual teams: lessons from MMOGs. [Transformational leadership in virtual teams] Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(4), 551-566. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-01-2019-0035

Purvanova, Radostina K. (2009). Transformational leadership in context: face-to-face and virtual teams. The Leadership quarterly 20 (3), 343.

Rico, R., Alcover, C., , & Tabernero, C. (2010). Efectividad de los equipos de trabajo: una revisión de la ultima década de investigación (1999-2009). Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 26(1), 47-71.

Schmidt, J. B., Montoya-Weiss, M., & Massey, A. P. (2001). New product development decision-making effectiveness: Comparing individuals, face-to-face teams, and virtual teams. Decision Sciences, 32(4), 575-600.

Schmidt, J. B., Montoya-Weiss, M., & Massey, A. P. (2001). New product development decision-making effectiveness: Comparing individuals, face-to-face teams, and virtual teams. Decision Sciences, 32(4), 575-600.

Staples, D. S., & Zhao, L. (2006). The effects of cultural diversity in virtual teams versus face-to-face teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15(4), 389-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-006-9042-x

Suriya, C., Johnson, S. D., Seung Won Yoon, Berrett, J. V., & La Fleur, J. (2002). Team development and group processes of virtual learning teams. Computers & Education, 39(4), 379–393.

Warkentin, M. E. (1997). Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: an exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decision sciences 28 (4), 975.

Prof. Jadyrah Escobar Garcia

Professor in the Business and Entrepreneurship department at AGMU. She is a doctoral candidate at Grand Canyon University, pursuing a PhD in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Professor Escobar’s research focuses on the implementation of Artificial Intelligence in recruitment and talent acquisition processes. She holds degrees in Business Administration, specializing in Human Resources and Communications in Advertising and Public Relations. She has specialized in restructuring processes, driving organizational change, internal communications, and implementing process improvements to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of business operations.