TEAM DESIGN IS KEY

The importance of team design and structure in the development and work of GDTs emerged as a consistent thread from our data analysis. GDT members saw their team design and structure as both similar to and different from that of colocated teams.

As with traditional teams, good task design—particularly clear and measurable goals—related positively to first-meeting effectiveness, ongoing meeting effectiveness, team dynamics, and team effectiveness. In addition, the team type (a project team or a functional team, for example) had a bearing on similar variables. Project group members reported that they felt more like part of a team after the first meeting than did functional group members. They were less likely than functional team members to spend time on social processes during face-to-face meetings. On the whole, project teams were more effective than functional teams.

GDTs found it particularly difficult to manage projects, schedule meetings, and coordinate work. GDT members reported disadvantages in all these activities. Support from the parent organization, however, partially alleviated these difficulties.

GDT members reported that project management training for the team increased the time they could devote to the task at hand in both face-to-face meetings and electronic meetings. GDTs that received project management training also rated electronic meetings as more effective than did GDTs that did not receive such training.

Team composition, which falls under team design in our model, emerged as another thread from our analysis. GDTs saw their composition as both similar to and different from the composition of traditional teams. That is, members of some teams perceived GDTs and traditional teams as composed of the same types of people in terms of characteristics and competencies. Members of other teams suggested that GDTs are made up of people very different from those on traditional teams. Two main themes stood out:

• GDTs had particular difficulty with cultural differences. Teams whose members represented a large number of nations concentrated more on business issues than on relationships during face-to-face meetings. Members of these teams collaborated less and had fewer strategic conflicts over the ways the team should achieve its goals. (Dealing with strategic conflicts encourages innovation and aids in problem solving, both of which are important to team effectiveness.)

Interestingly, teams that had received training on appreciating cultural differences spent less time on tasks during face-to-face meetings, experienced fewer strategic conflicts, and were less likely to be effective in achieving their goals. These findings contrast with the findings of some other researchers. We hypothesize that the GDTs in our study were struggling with and needed help in developing basic team skills such as project management. Training in cultural differences, although important, is less likely to positively affect performance when GDTs lack basic team skills.

• GDTs had difficulties when team members did not understand why they were selected to the team. When team members lacked this knowledge, they were less focused on the team's task after the first meeting, and during face-to-face meetings they spent more time on relationship building and less time on business issues. Teams with members who didn't know why they were chosen for the team were less likely to be effective.