Conflict in Virtual Teams

Virtual teams are becoming increasingly common in knowledge-based work such as information system development, product development, and engineering design. They are geographically dispersed workgroups that are often composed of several colocated sub­groups with different interests, work practices, and cultural backgrounds.

Conflict emerges in VTs as a function of inability to develop mutual understanding and shared knowledge, which gives rise to mis­understandings, misinterpretations, and, sub­sequently, misattributions (Cramton, 2001). That is no different from face-to-face teams, but the communication medium may exacer­bate those barriers. For instance, not answer­ing e-mails seems to be a common source of conflict in VTs (Cramton, 2001; Fernandez, 2004). Team members in other locations foster attitudes of “us” versus “them.” Computer- mediated communication may accentuate ten­dencies to react to others based on the social groups they belong to rather than considering them as individuals (Abrams, Hogg, Hinkle, & Otten, 2005). This may result in stereotyp­ing and other reactions that polarize VTs. Yet not all research demonstrates conclusively neg­ative findings in VTs. Some studies of interna­tional VTs suggest that the lack of nonverbal cues, fewer language errors in written mes­sages, and the absence of accents in e-mail and other leaner communication media may foster perceptions of increased similarity among VT members and render cultural differences that might provoke social identity processes less salient (Bhappu, Griffith, & Northcraft, 1997; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999).

Once conflict has emerged, other scholarship addresses how that conflict affects group pro­cesses in VTs. Lira, Ripoll, Peiro, and Orengo (2008) examined student VTs and found that while relational conflict many hinder both face-to-face and virtual groups, the hindrance is more pronounced in virtual groups, and these groups also suffered decreased potency from task conflict. There is also evidence that computer-mediated communication employed by many VTs may not be as conducive to consensus building and conflict resolution as face-to-face communication (Hinds & Bailey, 2003). As DeSanctis and Monge (1999) con­cluded, “About the only consistent finding in the empirical literature with regard to task and media is that [the tasks of] thinking convergently, resolving conflict, or reaching consensus [are] better done face-to-face than electronically” (p. 697). In an insightful study that compared VTs and traditional colocated teams, Hinds and Mortensen (2005) found that while conflict was higher in VTs overall than in traditional teams, in VTs in which there were higher levels of spontaneous, informal communication and in which it was easy to coordinate work, the level of conflict was no greater than in traditional teams. This suggests that as VTs develop relationships and work out procedures over time, they will improve their conflict management capabilities. Some of the communication technologies utilized by VTs incorporate features for structuring group processes, and these may help VTs surface and manage conflict.

There are both similarities and differences between findings on conflict in VTs and those in the other lines of research discussed in the instrumental perspective. Research on VTs strongly recapitulates two themes from research on colocated workgroups: (1) diver­sity is an important source of workgroup con­flict and (2) how the group handles the conflict influences whether it has positive or negative impacts on group outcomes. Research also indicates that conflict in VTs is driven by some of the same dynamics as in colocated groups, particularly social identity and attribution processes but that these effects are heightened in VTs compared with colocated groups. VTs face unique challenges in managing conflict due to their channels of communication. Lean media such as e-mail, computer conferencing, and chat that are currently used by most VTs may exacerbate conflict and render conflict management more difficult than it would be in colocated workgroups.