University of Phoenix Virtual Teams Discussion

2008 EABR & TLC Conferences Proceedings
Rothenburg, Germany
Virtual Management Of Teams:
A Revolutionary Approach
M. Jeffery Tyler
ABSTRACT
There?s an ironic story in the Christian Bible written by John the apostle, which tells of Jesus the Christ taking a
basin of water and washing his disciples? feet. One of the disciples, a man named Peter, refused to allow his leader
(rabbi) to do this. Jesus told him if he didn?t allow him to wash his feet, Peter would not have a place on the team of
disciples. Given this choice Peter told Jesus to not only wash his feet but to wash his hands and his head as well.
(Bar-Zebedee, 90-100) While this story is used numerous times from the pulpits of Christianity, it also provides us
with a great lesson in the evolving leadership practices required in the management of virtual teams.
Introduction
There is an old military axiom that I drew from, to coin the term, ?You manage objects; you lead people?
(Kharvi, 2006). If applied correctly, a good manager will utilize different approaches to the way he or she allocates
resources. It is relatively easy to manage objects given a simple understanding of math and knowing when and
where to allocate resources as necessary. This is because objects don?t have needs. People have needs and because
of this require a different blend of resource allocation principles to be applied. While we have found this to be true
in the normal application of business principles and we even teach our future managers the difference between
management and leadership, a new (or not so new) environment is taking place in the corporations of the world
today. The corporate world is getting smaller. Clifford Gray and Erik Larson identify four different kinds of
projects and, by extension, corporate endeavors, today. They refer to domestic practices as being performed in a
native country; overseas practices executed in a foreign country for a native country; foreign endeavors executed by
a native country in a foreign country for a business in that country and; a global business endeavor being executed
across national boundaries usually by multinational organizations utilizing individuals from differing countries
working together as a team to accomplish a specific endeavor (Gray & Larson, 2007). In each of these cases,
industry has moved into the use of virtual teams and in some cases to the exclusive use of virtual teams. Just as in
distributive computing, where the effort of the computing power is spread out to many different separated
computers, so to is the sum of the team effort parceled out to the different members of the team. And, just as in the
example of distributive computing the locale of the members on a virtual team is often separated by distance or
country. How to manage and lead such teams has produced many different approaches over the years with varying
degrees of success. This paper provides an approach that is based on historical success and precedence. This
approach is a basic approach but constitutes a major paradigm shift in the world of business management. In
distributive computing there is one computer that services all the other computers to allow them to do their
individual work. Yet this computer is the focal point for all computers to pass data through, store data, exchange
data and reconcile differences through. We call this computer a ?server? because while it isn?t the most powerful
computer or, the most versatile computer or, even the most expensive computer, it is a workhorse that is reliable,
available, maintainable, and dependable. In the research and development world we call this RAM-D and we look
for machines that meet each of these expectations. I submit to you that, in the development of a virtual team, we
must also look for a team lead that holds these qualities. We can call this person a team server or service leader.
And, I will postulate that in order to lead virtual teams a manager must be a serving manager instead of a directing
manager. This new paradigm turns the historical concept of managing upside down. But it has historical
precedence from our opening example of early Christianity all the way up through such management thinkers as
Douglas McGregor, Frederick Herzberg, and Abraham Maslow.
1
2008 EABR & TLC Conferences Proceedings
Hypothesis
Rothenburg, Germany
In order to lead virtual teams a manager must be a serving manager instead of a directing manager. The
analogy for this concept is that leading virtual teams is like implementing distributive (server based) computing.
There is historical precedence for such a type of leader management.
STUDY METHODOLOGY
This study was a research of historical concepts and principles based on proven uses of leadership and
management approaches for large groups not under the direct control or supervision of the leader or manager. This
research followed three distinct categories to provide different viewpoints for similar applications of these
principles. The three categories were Military, Religious, and Commerce to address three distinct and differing
approaches to leadership and management of peoples not under one?s direct supervision. All three categories
provide solid examples of distributive leadership and management. In each category certain succinct principles
were applied to successful completion of missions, theology, or mercantilism. All three categories were analyzed
from a historical perspective and common traits were then applied to an analysis of similar contemporary
management concepts for server management. Three distinct contemporary management theories evolved that
followed the historical precedence.
DISCUSSION
Analysis of Historical Precedence for Server Management
A review of successful military leaders included Son Tzu who admonished us to, ?Regard your soldiers as your
children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will
stand by you even unto death? (Tzu, 600 BC). Julius Caesar?s perception that, ?What we wish, we readily believe,
and what we ourselves think, we imagine others think also? (Caesar, 100-44 BC) predates McGregor?s premise that
each employee wants to do a good job and, given the chance, will work towards that end (McGregor, 2006). The
East India Trading Company followed these tenets in allowing what might be thought to be unparalleled latitude in
the way it allowed distant merchant directors to control their own areas of operations as long as the bottom line was
sustained and improved on (Keay, 1993). George S. Patton advocated that we, ?Don’t tell people how to do things,
tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results? (Patton, Best Leadership Quotes, 2008). His great
Ardennes offensive that, when executed pulled an entire Army off the front lines to run parallel to the lines of
combat and reinserted over 205,000 men back into another part of the battle shows what server leadership can do
(Patton, War As I Knew It, 1975). Recently, Jack Welch tells us, ?Globalization has changed us into a company
that searches the world, not just to sell or to source, but to find intellectual capital – the world’s best talents and
greatest ideas? (Mezak, 2006). Again, Welsh realized that, ?Giving people self-confidence is by far the most
important thing that I can do. Because then they will act? (Welch, 2001).
Analysis of Military Command and Control
A synthesis of these complementary thoughts was conducted and tested. It showed that two distinct objects
can be met or blended together. The East India Company showed an object managed organization that allowed
relative freedom of subordinate personnel as long as objects were managed to the good of the organization (Keay,
1993). In this regard even people were managed and few instances were found of leadership by example.
Conversely, People Led Leadership was found in many military situations but objects were found not to be managed
optimally. Rommel was an exception where necessity dictated he lead people, and manage limited resources
frugally to achieve his mission. (Liddell-Hart, 1953) One of the results of the Normandy invasion was the
emergence of the military?s Five Paragraph Field Order that, in many regards, is also followed in many industry
plans. (Army, 1997) In this plan the writer addresses the situation (people), the mission or purpose of the effort
(people), the concept of the operation or plans (people), the implementation processes (objects) and the logistics
(objects). Many a military plan, project or program plan and business plan follow these precepts. As a result of this
type of planning the stage is set for people to implement. But, how does this apply to the contemporary concepts of
2
2008 EABR & TLC Conferences Proceedings
Rothenburg, Germany
server leadership? That is, how do we know that given a good plan, people can execute on their own without
continuous supervision and guidance? Many of our contemporary business authors have given us this answer.
Analysis of Contemporary Precedence for Server Management
An analysis of contemporary leadership theories shows how people, given the opportunity, can take a well
prepared plan and with minimal direction
(interference) can achieve or exceed the
organizational objectives. In his book, The Human
Side of Enterprise, Douglas McGregor postulated two
opposing theories that, for him, encapsulated the
polarity of management principles. The Theory X
Variable assumed, at one end of the management
spectrum is a Charles Dickens type Scrooge
management precept that the average employee
dislikes work and will attempt to avoid it, has no
ambition and seeks no responsibility, is self-centered,
will resist any form of change, and lacks appreciable
intelligent and is therefore gullible. This management
principle was strongly adhered to during the
industrial revolution, but McGregor proposed a
different management theory built on Abraham
Maslow?s Hierarchy of Need in achieving the higher
needs of esteem and self-actualization resulting in the
Theory Y Variable (Maslow, 1999). Under Theory Y
Figure 1
the average worker works as naturally as if he or she
were at play or rest; they are self-directed and meet
work objectives if properly established, they are committed to these objectives if the opportunity to achieve selffulfillment is provided as a reward and they will seek responsibility to achieve self-actualization because there is a
common denominator of creativity and ingenuity that allows people to assume responsibility on their own.
Analysis of Frederick Herzberg?s Hygiene Theory, with regard to this study, brings to light two of his postulates,
that of the Dissatisfaction Variable, and the Satisfaction Variable (Herzberg, 1959). Given that workers are selfmotivated towards an objective and that objective is well defined to them, according to Herzberg they will need to
see satisfaction in the results. A well defined statement of a
team?s work with identifiable standards and checkpoints or
milestones along the way provides an environment of free
endeavor to allow a team to work toward a goal needing only the
support, not the supervisory direction of the manager. If this is a
given then there must be examples of this from the research that
validates such a reversal of a supervisor?s role.
Comparative Analysis of Contemporary Theory
The military has the longest history of conducting operations in
virtual or virtual-like situations over vast distances. This is
accomplished in what one might assume to be a Theory X form
of control; especially since the military refers to mission
accomplishment through command and control. But, a closer
look at military doctrine identifies motivational theory and the
Figure 2
hierarchy of need as precepts for commanders (leaders). Military
doctrine states that, ?Command and control is the exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated
commander over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission. Command and control
3
2008 EABR & TLC Conferences Proceedings
Rothenburg, Germany
functions are performed through an arrangement of personnel, equipment, communications, facilities, and
procedures employed by a commander in planning, directing, coordinating, and controlling forces and operations in
the accomplishment of the mission? (Army, 1997). Therefore, ?[C]ommanders exercise control by?
Acquiring and applying means to accomplish the commanders intent.