:: Horizontal Virtual Collaborative Team (HVCT) :: an introduction.

by Steve Van Doren

The team

Talking about collaborative decision making teams has never been a topic that has brought a great deal of interest to my table when I sit at Denny's sucking on a cigarette and downing a cup of coffee. It's never been entertained for a movie plot, nor have any riveting suspense novels been written from it. It's not saved planets, nor ended wars. What it has done is give many people the chance to work with many other people for a common goal.

Which speaks volumes about its usefulness. For, you see, if you already work in a corporate environment, you've already recognized that teams have become the lifeblood of organizations. They enable the exchange of information, expertise, and creativity to span more than just one person. Collaboration, shared ownership, role clarification-these are not just ideas; they are the livelihood of teams.

One of the fundamental concepts underlying organization design (which collaborative teams are based off of) is the difference between differentiation and integration. Why does communism always fail? Because these simple concepts are, more often than not, ignored in light of immediate financial gain instead of long-term satisfaction. Differentiation refers to the splitting up the basic units of what an organization will be-what needs to be separate and unique based off of the organization's goals and determined functions. Integration deals with bringing those smaller groups and making them work well together.

The recipe of success. Afterchaos is dedicated, for example, to proving that these two concepts can work together online-and achieving a healthy balance between them will be the greatest challenge. For example, each time a differentiation step is taken, consideration must be given to the corresponding integration step.

It is the structure of the organization that creates differentiation, and it's the process that enables integration. Our only democratic saving grace is that not everyone is equally skilled or predisposed to work in a collaborative way.

In their book TeamWork: What Must Go Right/What Can Go Wrong, Larson and LaFasto (1) identify eight characteristics of high-performing teams:

(1) a clear, elevating goal;

(2) a results-driven structure;

(3) competent members;

(4) unified commitment;

(5) a collaborative climate;

(6) standards of excellence;

(7) external support and recognition;

(8) principled leadership.

There is widespread agreement among researchers and practitioners that these are the attributes of successful teams. However, the research that produced these characteristics was done exclusively with face-to-face teams.

The preliminary research on virtual and geographically dispersed teams done by Kossler and Prestridge (2) at the Center for Creative Leadership and Lipnak and Stamps (3) suggests that these factors also apply to virtual teams, but it is, naturally, more difficult for these attributes to take form when the members are located in different parts of the world. Though virtual teams encounter the same problems that standard teams do (such as decision-making, roles, and conflict management), they are aggravated by distance. The effects of significantly reduced face-to-face (if any at all) or other informal contact among members adds to this conflict.

The leadership

Additional issues arise when dealing with leadership and the requirements therein. In structured, conventional teams, teams sit in a conference room and circle around ideas until a solution or consensus is reached. However, when teams are meeting through email, this process can take on an indefinite look-an endless cycle, never reaching an end. A dialogue is far easier to keep open when all one must do is hit the reply button.

In virtual teams, the leadership must know when to pull the group together in harmony. When multiple threads are happening, it is the leadership that must maintain clarity, ensuring that each thread is on task, and consensus is being reached. Sometimes, it's up to management to ensure that the threads stop when they've lived their usefulness.

This can, of course, sometimes be a full time job, and it's not without it's stress.

The structure

The structure of a virtual team model must follow certain structures set out by standard models of collaboration. In this regard, all authorities are in complete agreement. Structure, quite literally, defines how an organization's resources are to be used or grouped. It also specifies interrelationships between team members, layers of management, authority and it's placement, and operations. This structure definition is most typically differentiated around products, markets, customers, functions and geography.

Structures also define the amount of leadership and management required for the team to work. In this regard, we have flat, and hierarchical definitions. A flat structure will place a great deal of power in the hands of the team members, requiring very little management, and a hierarchical structure requires many levels of management, with very little power left in the hands of the team members.

The process

Processes are the definitions that enable a team to perform well on the dimensions of speed, cost, quality and innovation. Processes enable knowledge and experience to spread through the team, whether in business practices (finances, order fulfillment, etc) or human interaction practices (performance appraisal, problem solving, communication, etc).

These processes can be either horizontal or vertical. Horizontal processes manage coordination across the steps in a continuous or interdependent work process that spans departments, functions, and organizations. Vertical processes manage the allocation of scarce resources.

In order for the organization to function effectively, the structure and process must be clearly defined, with a great deal of consideration put into the development so as to ensure concurrent and interactive development. Like Communism, a common error is thinking that the structure is all there, so the changes are made with little or no consideration paid to the processes that define, focus, and enable the required integration, coordination, and collaboration among differentiated entities.

Above all this, however, imaginative processes need to exist to support the structure. There are, quite often, alternatives to the way a current team is operating. In all likelihood, people will be able to work more collaboratively and interdependently when such alternatives are brought forth. Detailed analysis must preempt implementation of any process, to ensure that such attention is paid to the relationships between people and processes.

Horizontal vs. vertical

Beyond the differences pointed out above, horizontal and vertical collaborative models exhibit an array of differences.

Most importantly, vertical processes allocate the resources of funds and talent. They are usually business planning and budgeting processes. The needs of different departments are centrally collected, and priorities are decided for the budgeting and allocation of the resources to capital, research and development, training, etc.

Horizontal processes, on the other hand, are designed around the workflow of the team, rather than the resources, such as new product development or customer order fulfillment-just to name a couple. These processes are becoming the primary medium for managing in today's organizations. Horizontal processes can be carried out in a range of ways, from charitable contacts between employees to complex and formally chartered teams.

Afterchaos exists to help prove the horizontal model in a new and exciting way. Vertical models have existed in virtual dimensions for years-allocating resources to establish goals, rather than managing the workflow of a particular product or service. In the 90s, many of the dotCom startups existed under this structure-if any at all.

The virtual horizontal model offers us the unique opportunity to prove that such a structure can exist and is useful. Management is kept at the team level, workflow is strictly formulated, and actions are focused and powerful.

---

(1) Larson, C.E., & LaFasto, F.M. (1989). TeamWork: What must go right/What can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

(2)Kossler, M.E., & Prestridge, R. (1996). Geographically dispersed teams. Issues & Observations, 16(2/3), 9-11.

(3) Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

• « Previous
• page up
• Next »