Conflict and Team Dynamics
Project teams located across diverse locations often experience a multiplicity of challenges that lead to adverse outcomes on team dynamics and performance (Paulus, Bichelmeyer, Malopinsky, Pareira, & Rastogi, 2005). As demonstrated in the Vigilance Project case, one of these challenges concerns the issue of distance. This paper provides useful insights on how distance has affected team dynamics and performance in the project.
Distance and Team Dynamics
Although the issue of distance in the Vigilance Project may be embedded in the fact that team members are located in two different geographical locations (the United States and France), it is clear that there are other psychological, social and cultural factors that affect team dynamics and performance more than the physical attributes. From the case, it is evident the project leader uses an autocratic leadership style and that the contributions of members in the subteams and the core team are not considered. It is also clear that there is a breakdown of effective communication and no orientation was done to facilitate the development of relationships among team members (Dominick, n.d.).
These issues have been known to lead to adverse social and psychological outcomes, including low self-esteem, distrust, team apathy, frustration, anger, and inadequate collaboration among team members (Neeley, 2015). Most of these negative outcomes have been observed in some members of the Vigilance Project’s subteams and the core team, implying that the separation being witnessed is more psychological than physical.
A critical examination of the issues shows that the members would be experiencing similar problems even if they were located in the same building. This observation is made from several perspectives, one of which is the fact that contemporary technology applications such as teleconferencing and videoconferencing can deal with issues of physical distance in that team members can communicate and collaborate in real-time (O’Leary, Wilson, & Metiu, 2014).
Another perspective is the failure of the project leadership to adopt strategies that can ensure the successful integration of team members to spur team dynamics and performance. Available literature shows that teams are made stronger when leaders maintain open communication channels, recognize the contributions of each team member, encourage collaboration and information sharing within the team, and ensure successful cultural integration (Neeley, 2015; Paulus et al., 2005). Sadly, these dynamics are missing in the project, leading to suboptimal performance of team members, feelings of distrust and anger, lack of meaningful contribution among team members, and lack of collaborative efforts.
Cultural Differences
Available literature is clear that “individuals that have different cultural backgrounds bring unique perspectives to a team” (Paulus et al., 2005, p. 44). Using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory, it is possible to understand how the high power distance practiced by the French project leader is affecting other members of the care team by minimizing their chances to make important contributions to how the project is implemented. The French project leader’s cultural values are geared toward autocratic leadership, which in turn makes other project leaders to feel unwanted and unrecognized.
Conclusion
To move forward, the company needs to come up with ways to reduce the psychological distance among team members in the subteams and the core team. This can be done by improving communication channels, undertaking a comprehensive orientation program for team members, changing the leadership style to a more democratic and inclusive approach, and ensuring that team members are appreciated and recognized.
References
Dominick, P.G. (n.d.). The vigilance project – case overview. Web.
Neeley, T. (2015). Global teams that work. Harvard Business Review, 93(10), 74-81. Web.
O’Leary, M.B., Wilson, J.M., & Metiu, A. (2014). Beyond being there: The systematic role of communication and identification in perceptions of proximity to geographically dispersed colleagues. MIS Quarterly, 38(4), 1219-1243. Web.
Paulus, T.M., Bichelmeyer, B., Malopinsky, L., Pareira, M., & Rastogi, P. (2005). Power distance and group dynamics of an international project team: A case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(1), 43-55. Web.