Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68 – 79

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Getting it done: Critical success factors for project managers in virtual

work settings
Robert M. Verburg a,⁎, Petra Bosch-Sijtsema c , Matti Vartiainen b

a
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
b
Aalto University School of Science and Technology, Finland
c
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

Received 10 December 2010; received in revised form 28 February 2012; accepted 17 April 2012

Abstract

What conditions do project managers perceive as the most important to get the work done when working in fully dispersed settings? Rather than
focusing on problems that managers experience when working in dispersed settings, our study highlights the conditions that are important for
successful task accomplishment. We applied a Means-End-Chain (MEC) method to investigate the links between task accomplishment and
relevant conditions that are attributes, benefits and values among a sample of experienced project managers (N = 30). Our results show that
important conditions for successful project execution in a dispersed setting include rules of communication and its clarity; project management
style and goal-setting; and managers' competences and trust in a team. In addition to these internal conditions, project managers also stress the
importance of both corporate and technology support. These four conditions are all perceived as vital for task accomplishment in global dispersed
projects.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Managing projects; Managing teams; Managing individuals; Leadership; Dispersed teams

1. Introduction for globally dispersed teams (Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999).

Information and communication technologies (ICT) allow
project organizations to extend their activities from traditional co-
located settings to dispersed or virtual settings (e.g. Cramton
and Webber, 2005; Hertel et al., 2005; Lee-Kelley and Sankey,
2008; Montoya et al., 2009; Rad and Levin, 2003). With the
increase of globally dispersed work, a growing number of studies
show a number of issues that influence the degree of seamless
collaboration within globally dispersed teams (Anantatmula
and Thomas, 2010; Bell and Kozlowski, 2002; O'Leary and
Cummings, 2007; Schweitzer and Duxbury, 2010; Townsend et
al., 1998). Especially, differences in time, location, culture, or a
combination of these factors provide some substantial challenges
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 152787234; fax: +31 152782950.
E-mail addresses: r.m.verburg@tudelft.nl (R.M. Verburg),
Petra.Bosch@chalmers.se (P. Bosch-Sijtsema), matti.vartiainen@aalto.fi
(M. Vartiainen).
0263-7863/$36.00 © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.04.005
Many of these globally dispersed teams' members work in one
or even multiple projects (Ziga-Viktorssen et al., 2006). Such
global project teams come in many forms, with differing
objectives, membership criteria, and levels of dispersion and
diversity (Zigurs, 2003).
Organizations are more often than before comprised of
temporary systems whose elements – people as well as
technology – are assembled and disassembled according to the
shifting needs of specific projects (Huemann, 2010; Kaulio,
2008; Keegan and Den Hartog, 2004; Modig, 2007; Thirty and
Deguire, 2007). Employees often participate simultaneously in
many projects. In addition to multi-tasking, the content of work
is also changing and becoming more intellectual rather than
physical. The role of technologies as an enabler is essential for
dispersed organizations and global project teams. Their members
must communicate, coordinate, and build relationships largely –
and in case of fully dispersed settings exclusively – via information
and communication technologies (ICT), which enable full
 R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79
collaboration without being co-located (Andriessen, 2002;
Montoya et al., 2009). Developments in mobile, wireless and
smart ICT have increased further on possibilities to work flexibly
in any place and time (Andriessen and Vartiainen, 2006).
The aim of this study is to gain insight how project managers
may improve effective collaboration between dispersed team
members. We focus on the perspective of a project manager
who is responsible for task accomplishment. When a project
needs to be executed in a dispersed setting, what are the most
important attributes for a responsible manager to get the work
done? Rather than to focus on the problems that managers
experience through working in dispersed settings our study
highlights some critical factors for successful task accomplish-
ment from the perspective of the project manager. The paper
is organized as follows. First we present a review of current
literature on global dispersed teams and generate a list of possible
conditions that are important for project managers in order to
successfully work in dispersed work settings. Next, we describe
our methodology and present the results of our empirical analysis.
Finally, we discuss the implications of our research.
1.1. Perspectives on virtuality
In dispersed work settings, mediated ‘virtual’ communica-
tion is needed in collaboration. There are two main concepts of
“virtuality” to characterize work settings: the technology-oriented
approach and the system-oriented approach (see Speier and
Palmer, 1998). In the technology-oriented approach, the degree
of “virtuality” is defined and measured as the amount, the
frequency, and the quality of electronically mediated communi-
cation. This measure is often complemented with the amount
and frequency of face-to-face contacts as the other basis of
the categorization. The system-oriented approach does not only
highlight the immediate interaction relationships and the quality
of their outcomes but views technology as only one feature of
work conditions. Some factors are related to intra-group processes,
such as the cohesion of a group or an organization, to the needs
to communicate virtually and, finally, the types of information
technology needed to support work activities (Chudoba et al.,
2005; Gibson and Gibbs, 2006; Speier and Palmer, 1998). As
shown in the cocitation analysis of Raghuram et al. (2010)
research interests on virtual work have grown from 1995 on
and are shown as increased number of research clusters in the
field. Inside the cluster of “virtual teams”, several sub-topics are
continuously discussed. Ragrum et al. conclude that the field of
virtual work is still robust and dynamic, and the answering to
the question of what is “virtual” still continues. Especially in the
area of project management working under distributed circum-
stances is rather a rule than an exception.
The concept of discontinuity is important in this context.
Discontinuities are described as gaps or a lack of coherence in
aspects of work, such as work setting, task, and relations with
other workers or managers. Discontinuities can arise in factors
such as the location of the workers, how work is accomplished,
and the basis for relationships between workers and organiza-
tions, and between organizations (Chudoba et al., 2005; Watson-
Manheim et al., 2002). Possible sources of discontinuities can be:
69
geographical location, temporal location (time-zone), organiza-
tional (both intra- and inter-organizational), culture, work practice
and technology discontinuities. Project managers could benefit
by concentrating on these discontinuities as these are sources of
possible disturbances in globally dispersed teams. The factors are
not always logically interrelated. For example, group members
dispersed in different countries can work towards a common goal
under centralized supervision without any communication except
with their manager when their tasks are loosely coupled and
workflow is sequentially organized (Bell and Kozlowski, 2002).
Also, co-located team members commonly communicate with
each other by sending e-mails, instant messages or using other
tools. For project managers it is important to perform in globally
dispersed teams by using such tools effectively.
1.2. The challenge of fully dispersed settings
Employees often participate simultaneously in many projects
and successful project management depends on the facilitation
of communication and the building of work relationships among
members (Huemann, 2010). The role of technologies as an
enabler is essential for dispersed global project teams as the core
of communication and the building of relationships is performed
through information and communication technologies (Montoya
et al., 2009). Many global firms increasingly organize their
projects through globally dispersed project teams with high
degrees of virtuality. Global project teams may experience higher
or lower levels of diversity, have different degrees of geographic
dispersion, and may differ in their dependence on electronic
tools. Such teams are often deployed for limited durations of time
and are characterized by strict budgets and high turnover rates
among members of the team (e.g. Rad and Levin, 2003). These
can be called global dispersed project teams. Members of
dispersed project teams are spanning boundaries of space and
time when working temporary on a shared goal and communicate
primarily by means of ICT (Bell and Kozlowski, 2002; Dubé
and Paré, 2004; Evaristo, 2003; Griffith and Neale, 2001.
1.3. Benefits and barriers of global dispersed project teams
The needs to exploit local expertise when needed, the
flexibility, and the responsiveness to the local market and
customers' needs are reported in the literature as generic benefits
of dispersed project work (Anantatmula and Thomas, 2010;
Davidow and Malone, 1992; Karolak, 1998; Kuruppuarachchi,
2009; McDonough et al., 2001; Wiesenfeld et al., 1999). These
developments are associated with possible economical and
efficiency benefits, such as savings in real estate and travel
costs, and the opportunity to work around the clock
(Grimshaw and Kwok, 1998). There are also a number of
generic problems with dispersed work reported in the
literature. These problems include difficulties in communica-
tion of complex tasks, quality of technological tools, trust
building, and leadership issues (see Hertel et al., 2005;
Kuruppuarachchi, 2009; Martins et al., 2004 for overviews),
decreased effectiveness (Cramton and Webber, 2005) as well
as issues of well-being such as feelings of isolation and
70 R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79
increased mental workload (Nurmi, 2011; Richter et al.,
2006).
Research on the impact of ICT mediated communication on
dispersed team effectiveness shows conflicting results (Martins
et al., 2004). Contrary to face-to-face meetings, which provide
for information exchange over multiple channels (vision, sound
and smell), an often used asynchronous application such as e-mail
can only transfer text based information. Although more advanced
tools, such as chat, audio- and videoconferencing, sophisticated
groupware tools and virtual world environments are nowadays
available to dispersed teams, these teams seem to take more
time to reach their goals. On the other hand, the addition of
videoconference resources to a team has been found to lead to
significant improvements to the quality of a team's decisions
(Baker, 2002).
The use of media capable of transferring information via
multiple channels also results in increased levels of performance
and trust (Burgoon et al., 2002). The novelty of technology used
in dispersed teams has been found to negatively impact team
performance (Cramton and Webber, 2005). Teams with members
who have few opportunities to meet face-to-face are also
vulnerable to process losses and performance problems (Gibson
and Cohen, 2003; Lipnack and Stamps, 2000). Many researchers,
therefore, have claimed that face-to-face meetings are vital for
dispersed teams, especially in the startup phase of the team
(Duarte and Snyder, 1999; Gibson and Cohen, 2003). Montoya
et al. (2009) concluded that the ICT use in virtual new product
design teams was contingent on task type. e.g., gathering
information and problem solving, ICT type, e.g. e-mail and
shared applications, and situational factors in organizations. A
few studies discuss the effectiveness of global project teams
from the project managers' perspective and highlight the critical
role of strong leadership in helping project teams to overcome
their challenges (for example, Anantatmula and Thomas, 2010;
Edmondson and Nembhard, 2009; Kayworth and Leidner, 2000).
Other research focuses on multi-projecting and its negative
consequences for long-term development, learning as well as
reflection time for project managers (Ziga-Viktorssen et al., 2006).
1.4. Managing global dispersed project teams
A review shows that there is ample attention for the
organization of projects in the project management literature,
although studies on dispersed projects are limited (Artto and
Wikström, 2005). In this study, we focus on situations in which
project managers are working in project teams with high
degrees of “virtuality”. In such situations, face-to-face contacts
among team members are limited and we assume that collabo-
ration is primarily done electronically and that the quality of
electronic interaction is high. This implies that the speed, richness,
and volume of transferred information are also high. The project
manager is usually the stable part of a team under these conditions
and acts as the coordinator and primary decision maker within
such teams (Keegan and Den Hartog, 2004). It is the project
manager who may decide on how to organize the dispersed work.
Past research has identified a number of attributes of dispersed
work that are usually taken for granted as the main decision
criteria for going fully virtual, namely the level of diversity of
team members (e.g. Barinaga, 2007), the level of trust (e.g. Diallo
and Thuillier, 2005) and of the quality of technical equipment
forcommunication (e.g. Hertel et al., 2005; Martins et al., 2004).
We are particularly interested in what attributes of global
dispersed project teams are important for managers to get the
work done. In other words, what conditions are important for
project managers when faced with high degrees of ‘virtuality’.
There are a number of critical success conditions for leading
dispersed, ICT-mediated project teams. The formation of the
desired norms and values among team members has received
much attention and is an important condition for teams in general
and dispersed teams in particular (e.g. Powell et al., 2004;
Wiesenfeld et al., 1999). Shenhar and Dvir (1996) suggest that
planning and control are core activities of project managers. In
order to do so, project managers are involved with the division of
the overall task into subtasks, define clear responsibilities, and set
out clear communication rules that are rooted in organizational
norms and values. Such norms and values may help dispersed
team members in creating a sense of connectedness with other
team members and might increase the task interdependence
(Hertel et al., 2005; Maznevski, 1994; Van der Vegt and Janssen,
2003).
Another well-documented condition for successful team
work is trust among team members. Especially, for dispersed
team members, trust is often perceived as a necessary condition
for collaboration (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998). Next to trust, diversity
among team members has been defined by Gibson and Gibbs
(2006) as of major importance to virtuality. Dispersed project
teams are likely to involve members from different countries
and cultural backgrounds. Teams with a high degree of virtuality
may show individual differences among team members in terms
of gender, age, skills and cultural values. There may also be
differences in experience with dispersed team works. Research
shows that diversity in cultural background and competences
of team members are a source of misunderstanding and conflict
(Maznevski and Chudoba, 2000). Dealing with diversity can,
therefore, be regarded as an important condition for success of
dispersed teams. Kayworth and Leidner (2000) show that the
skills of the project manager in articulating goals, assigning
responsibilities and providing continuous feedback are also
important for the success of virtual project teams. Leadership
skills alone are not enough and research indicates that leaders of
dispersed projects need ample company support in order to get
the work done (Gibson and Cohen, 2003; Hertel et al., 2005;
Lipnack and Stamps, 2000).
1.5. Accomplishment as project managers' value
In order to gain insight in which conditions are important
for project managers, we focus on task accomplishment as their
core value. The value of accomplishment implies personal
success through demonstrating competence according to prevail-
ing cultural standards (Schwartz, 1992). Values are seen as
universal and as a vital component of the self-concept, and they
are considered essential to the experience of meaning (Cha and
Edmondson, 2006). Many organizations adhere to performance-
 R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79
oriented values, such as quality, effectiveness, efficiency or
profitability, or they define communal values like the welfare and
needs of employees (Cha and Edmondson, 2006). For team
leaders, values are stable and long-term beliefs about what is
important for the success of a team (Sheard and Kakabdse, 2001).
Values have been widely studied in crosscultural fields.
Schwartz (1994) defines values as desirable trans-situational
goals that vary in importance and may serve as guiding
principles for a person. Values can be understood as objectives,
which consciously or unconsciously function as criteria in all
our actions. When viewing values as objectives, the following
aspects can be acknowledged: (1) values function as interests
for individuals or groups; (2) values motivate behavior and give
it direction and intensity; (3) values function as criteria for
the evaluation and justification of behavior; (4) values are
acquired through the socialization of dominant group norms
and through unique individual experiences (Schwartz, 1994).
Values are important for organizational change and are rooted
in organizational cultures. Organizational culture constitutes ‘the
way we do things here’ within a team or organization. The concept
is usually defined as a framework consisting of assumptions and
values shared by organization members (Schein, 1985). Within
teams, cultures provide a sense of identity for team members,
generate commitment to the mission, and clarify or even reinforce
behavior. Leaders play a role in the change and maintenance
of cultures through influencing the team through their values.
Leaders of project teams differ from those of traditional work
groups as leaders of project teams tend to help team members
(subordinates) to take responsibility for their own work rather
than telling them what to do (Sheard and Kakabdse, 2001).
The attributes of settings with high degrees of “virtuality”
are part of the organizational context and influence leadership
choices on how to get the work done. Therefore, we link the
above-described attributes of virtual settings to personal motiva-
tions related to benefits and values of decision-makers. In our
study, we assume that the project manager is usually the
coordinator and primary decision maker within project teams
(Keegan and Den Hartog, 2004). In practice, project managers
may encounter many organizational constraints in making de-
cisions. We linked the attributes discussed in literature (i.e.,
organizational aspects of projects, team trust and culture, diversity,
leadership, and company support) with the values of project
managers as decision-makers in Fig. 1.
The aim of our study is to find links between conditions and
the value of accomplishment when project managers are
dealing with fully virtual work settings.
2. Methodology
We applied the Means-End Chain (MEC) method for collecting
and analyzing qualitative data from 30 project managers (25 males
and 5 females) of virtual project teams in nine global companies.
The global companies operate in diverse areas, such as software
development, electronics, engineering, and oil and gas. On average
the project managers in our sample reported to have 7.9 years of
experience in (dispersed) project teams and had led about six
different dispersed team projects. The MEC method enables a
71
detailed visualization of qualitative data. The means-end theory
shows how attributes of an object are linked to its consequences
(benefits and drawbacks), which in turn can be linked to the
attainment of values (Gutman, 1982; Olson and Reynolds, 1983;
Rosenberg, 1956). Therefore objects – in our case the conditions
of dispersed work settings – are selected for both their
characteristics and attributes as well as for the benefits. These
benefits are usually perceived subconsciously and connected
with the achievement of individual goals (Peter and Olson,
1987). An underlying assumption is that decision-makers, such
as project managers, take the consequences of their decisions into
consideration (Reynolds and Gutman, 1988). Before making a
decision, people judge these consequences and align their
decision making with their preference systems. Certain immedi-
ate benefits are considered to be attractive because they lead to
more fundamental outcomes (values), which justify benefit-
oriented decisions. Eventually, people will decide for things that
support and justify their values.
The connections or links between attributes, benefits and
values can be identified by using the ‘laddering technique’ (cf.
Reynolds and Gutman, 1988). It is an interviewing method that
aims at explaining choices through the identification of the
links among object attributes, associated with consequences
and values. In this laddering technique, interviewees are asked
repeatedly why a specific attribute in an object is important
in order to understand how project managers translate these
attributes of their work conditions into meaningful associations
to benefits and values. In this reasoning process project managers
justify their decisions on how to successfully manage a dispersed
project by identifying links between conditions and benefits and
then link these benefits to values. MEC enables us to understand
the relatively un-programmed behavior of a senior project manager
by revealing their motives and values in relation to working under
distributed conditions. The MEC framework reveals connections
between stable values and attributes of virtual teams which
are directly relevant to decision making in global projects. In this
way, the important conditions for working under high degrees
of “virtuality” in project teams may be established. Rather than
asking directly for these conditions, we focus on their goals and
values in order to get a less biased view on what conditions
are important for getting the work done.
2.1. Collecting laddering data by interviews
The MEC-process implies a number of steps. We performed
personal, in-depth and structured interviews for at least 1 h
with 30 senior project managers of global companies. The
interviews were held in English in three countries, i.e., Finland,
Netherlands and Switzerland, and interviewees came from eight
different European nationalities. These project managers were
selected on the basis of their seniority in leading global virtual
projects. First, an interview protocol was developed by the whole
research team. Then, the interview list of attributes (Fig. 1) and
interview method was pilot tested by all three research groups.
This test was taped, transcribed and evaluated afterwards. The
developed interview protocol made sure to collect sufficient
72 R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79

Project organization
Clear cut task
Clear common goal
Clear responsibilities
Clear communication rules
Technology
Tasks

Motivators of decision makers

Attributes of virtual settings
High potential motivators
• Control
Team processes • Duty
Trust • Accomplishment
Open and clear • Creation
communication • Community
Team selection • Freedom
• Harmony
Individual diversity • Reputation
Homogeneity/diversity of
backgrounds
Age
Experience
Social interaction skills
Willingness to work fully
virtual

Leadership
Interpersonal skills
Experience
Power and control

Company support
Support with tools, time,
and incentives
Communication rules,
policy

Fig. 1. Linking virtual settings attributes to motivators of decision makers.

context data (soft laddering) and data for attributes, benefits
and values. The data was collected in the following four steps:
(a) Background information of the interviewee. These items
included information on the personal characteristics and
job information of interviewees, for example work experi-
ence as a project manager, working with virtual teams and
tenure.
(b) Attributes of importance for high degree virtual projects.
The elicitation of attributes was based on a fictive scenario
of a high degree dispersed work setting. The following
scenario was presented to each interviewee:
“Imagine that you are asked to lead a new one-year project
within your area of expertise. The task is complex, e.g. the
delivery of a worldwide (10 countries) market research
report, and requires a dispersed team, such as local experts
in all countries that you need to cover. Moreover you are
working on a tight budget. This means that travel costs must
be avoided. You need to perform the task in a fully virtual
manner, using phone and videoconferences, a shared data-
base and a virtual team room. There are no opportunities
for face-to-face contact.”
After presenting the scenario, we started to identify the
attributes of the virtual work environment which would be
of importance to the interviewee. We intended to collect
10–15 distinct attributes from one interviewee. We did that
by asking repeatedly the same question: “What would be
important for you in this situation?” For example:
• Question: “What would be important for you in this
situation?”
• Answer: “Team members that know how to work
virtually.”
• Question: “What else would be important for you in
this situation?”
• Answer: “A strong technological support — like a 24 h
IT service that supports me when the system does not
work.”(…)
• Question: …
• Question: … etc.
(c) Identifying the ladders. After finding the attributes, we
identified the benefits and values of each attribute of the
respondents through laddering. For every single attribute
we asked “why is that important for the project/for you
personally?” Box 1 features an example of laddering
interview. The goal of laddering was to acquire a chain
of attributes, benefits and values as cognitive paths.
(d) A reality check. As the interview was based on the fictive
scenario, an immediate reality check for validation purposes
was performed in a 10 minute session at the end of each
interview. It aimed to let the respondents reflect on their
 R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79
answers and to relate these to some bad and good practices
of real projects conducted within their organizations. For
the results of the reality check we refer to the Results:
importance of accomplishment as value section.
2.2. Analysis and presentation
All of the interviews were taped and transcribed. We used
iterative coding – indexing of the same interviews by three
different analysts – definitions of attributes, benefits and values
to make sure all analysts will use the same definitions. In the
laddering analysis, attributes as critical factors for project
success were first identified, next we focused on the benefits
as consequences of these attributes, and finally values as drivers
of project managers' activities were identified. The methodol-
ogy enabled us to identify a number of important attributes of
the dispersed work environment on the basis of the interviews
following the scenario. The benefits that were put forward by the
respondents could be linked to values. The result is shown as a
picture or hierarchical value map of the “ideal world” (see Fig. 2).
This visualization depicts how a dispersed work environment
needs to be designed in order to meet the needs and values of
the interviewees.
3. Results: importance of accomplishment as value
In total 276 attributes were put forward in the interviews.
The identified attributes were linked to the benefits and values
by laddering them through a hierarchical value map as
presented in Fig. 2. In this figure, the thick lines represent
strong links, i.e. in case a certain link was mentioned more than
13 times by the different respondents. Thinner lines represent
Box 1
Example of laddering interview.
Interviewer: “You mentioned the importance of enabling the
technical setups, like enabling call conference, this document
and data repository and having the email list distribution, why is
this important?”
Respondent: “Good communication is one of the key issues
at least in these kinds of big virtual projects, so that everybody
knows the policies and procedures about how to communicate
with each other, they know what email lists or phone conference
to use and they know where to find information for this phone
conference, numbers and email lists. They know where to look for
and to access the comments; they know that they are stored in a
well defined place where you can rely on the fact that all the
documents are placed (benefits).”
Interviewer: “Why is this important to you?”
Respondent: “Because when this kind of setting is in place, it
ensures the progress in the project and it ensures that I can
check that the project is progressing, I can go to that documents
area and check that there are new drafts and that something is
happening (value).”
The cognitive path in this example is the following one:
attribute = importance of enabling the technical setups; benefit =
good communication; and value = job security related to project
and company success.
73
links that were mentioned more than eight times and the dotted
lines represent weaker links between benefits and values. In
this case, a specific link was mentioned only between four and
seven times by our respondents. The benefits and attributes
that were most prominently addressed by the respondents are
represented by the gray shaded boxes in the figure.
The nine identified attributes in Fig. 2 represent 72% of all the
276 attributes that were originally mentioned in the interviews.
The following conditions for dispersed project work are the most
important ones: support and resources a company provides; rules
of communication and its clarity; project management style
and goal-setting; and managers' competences and trust in a team.
Although many benefits that emerged from the attributes were
identified in literature, only five benefits were mentioned
relatively often in the interviews. The most important benefit is
‘Faster project conduct’. This benefit has the most links to the
attributes (24% of the links). Other important benefits are:
‘increased project control’, ‘alignment and shared goals’, ‘stronger
focus on work than politics’ and ‘improved work motivation’.
We found that the value of accomplishment was the most
important value (represents 61% of all links mentioned) of
the initial list of eight values (see Fig. 1). Other values that
were mentioned more often were reputation (represents 10%),
creation (8%), and power/control (5%). The three top values
represent 79% of all the links mentioned from benefits to values.
Thus, as expected and in line with current insights into project
execution (Turner et al., 2008), accomplishment and reputation
are the important drivers for project managers also when they
are involved with situations with a high degree of “virtuality”.
Reputation is here defined as a value, i.e., the project manager's
concern for creating (or maintaining) a good reputation of the
team and its individual members in an organization and towards
customers.
From our interview data the value of accomplishment is
perceived as the most important objective for which project
managers strive in a setting with high degrees of “virtuality”.
The value of accomplishment is fed by benefits associated with
fully virtual settings. Faster project conduct (efficiency) is the
most important benefit for reaching accomplishment in our
data. However, also increased project control and the alignment
of shared goals within the team are important perceived benefits
of project managers related to accomplishment. To a lesser extent
the benefits of a stronger focus on work than on politics and
improved work motivation lead to accomplishment. In order to
achieve these benefits and accomplishment, project managers see
management support and infrastructure resources, teaming and
team skills and project-management aspects as most important
attributes. Project managers value the fact that a project can be
conducted faster (faster project conduct) and to finish a project
before the deadline. Accomplishment and reputation are impor-
tant for the performance appraisal of project managers, and it is no
surprise that we find this in our interviews with project leaders.
Accomplishment and reputation are important drivers for project
managers regardless of the specific circumstances.
However, in case of high degrees of virtuality and dispersed
work settings, what do leaders specifically need in order to be
successful in terms of accomplishing their task under conditions
74 R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79
Fig. 2. Hierarchical value map of all interviews.
of limited face-to-face interactions, diversity and mediated
electronic interactions among team members? We found
three strong pathways to answer this question. The data as
reported in Fig. 2 suggested three strong pathways from
attributes to benefits and values: (a) the communication–
efficiency/alignment–accomplishment path; (b) the corporate and
technical support–efficiency–accomplishment path and (c) the
support and communication rules–speed/control–reputation
path. In these three pathways, the value accomplishment and
the benefits of efficiency (faster project conduct) play overriding
roles. Below we discuss these three strong linked pathways in
more detail and explain these pathways with help of quotes and
examples from the interviews.
3.1. The communication–efficiency/alignment–accomplishment
link
We found a strong link between clear communication rules,
faster project conduct and the value of accomplishment
(representing 61% of links, see Fig. 3). Clear communication
rules imply rules and policies defined by the dispersed team and
a project manager about how and when to communicate and
with what kind of tools (e.g., meetings, deliverables, code of
conduct, where to find stored material). These rules are
important according to the project managers so that people
know what to do and that the project is not delayed by
misunderstandings about how to communicate with each other.
As one project manager mentioned:
‘Well, it is again the guidelines, which everyone can follow.
… It guides for example a phone conference; everybody
knows he has to be present and he is not allowed to put his
phone on mute to be sure that he does not do anything else.
He will follow that. It is much easier then to communicate or
to focus the people on the real task.’
Together with clear communication rules, project managers
mentioned the attributes of trust and open and clear communica-
tion (as a basis to create trust). Open and clear communication also
contributed to a faster project conduct because less misunder-
standings and conflicts would arise. Further, the alignment of the
team and shared goals within the team were seen as an important
benefit of both having clear communication rules and trust within
the team. Several interviewees discussed the fact that their global
project team members worked in multiple both local and global
projects, and project managers had to communicate often and
clearly to create shared goal alignments for the global projects.
The communication–efficiency/alignment link is strongly related
to the value of accomplishment. Project managers view it as
important to create a trusting team in which members have clarity
and are open towards one another and in which clarity about how
to communicate is important. These conditions help to increase
the speed of the project and create alignment and shared goals.
Increasing the speed of product conduct is beneficial for economic
reasons (less costs for pursuing the project), and the alignment and
shared goals create a team which works more closely together
which could be beneficial for the team spirit and indirectly for
the final results. The value of accomplishment demonstrates the
 R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79
Values
Accomplishment
0.61
Benefits Alignment & shared
goals
0.17
Attributes
Mentioned ≥ 14 times
Mentioned ≥ 9 times
Mentioned > 4 times
Fig. 3. The communication–efficiency/alignment–accomplishment link.
ability of the project manager to lead a fully virtual project; the
ability to reach the goal.
3.2. The corporate and technical support–efficiency–accom-
plishment link
We also found that the support of the company in the form of
policies, tools and infrastructures, and rewards and incentives
was beneficial for a faster project conduct (24% of the links, see
Fig. 4) and the alignment and shared goals (17%) in the team. The
examples mentioned by project managers were the management
support by the firm, the support in offering training and education
in how to work in virtual projects, and rewards and incentives
presented by the firm for working virtually. A project manager
mentioned:
‘Support of the company can be shown in many ways. Of
course the necessary support from the company is that you
have all the tools available, but when you have all those
tools and if you are making huge personal sacrifices for a
long time, you expect some other support from the company
as well, a possibility to compensate your long hours with
some leisure time. … some people may think that they have
to be compensated with money.’
Another manager stated:
‘(…) but I have the tools that provide me the flexibility and in
a way positive attitude from my supervisor in this kind of
working method, so positive in that way that I can
personally alone decide when I work, how I work, what I
do. Trust from my boss.’
We found a relatively strong link between the technical
support for fully virtual settings and having the benefits of faster
project conduct (efficiency) and increased project control. Project
managers felt that they were able to follow the progress of the
75
Number of links
mentioned
61%
of 329
Faster project
conduct 41% of
276
0.24
Clear Open & clear
communi- Trust communi- 37% of
cation rules cation 276
0.11 0.08 0.08
project with help of technical support and the speed of the project
would be improved. One project manager mentioned:
‘When this kind of setting (technological setting) is in place,
it ensures the progress in the project and it ensures that I
can check that the project is progressing.’
The benefits of speed, control and alignment also had a strong
link to the value of accomplishment of project managers. The
support of the company and the technological infrastructure
offered are perceived as valuable for project managers to succeed
in their task (accomplishment value) by increasing the project
conduct, increasing project control, and creating alignment and
shared goals.
3.3. The support and communication rules–speed/control–
reputation path
Besides accomplishment, the value of reputation appears to be
important and represents 10% of the links. Corporate support
and technology support for working fully virtual and clear
communication rules can help to nurture the project manager's
reputation through increased project control and faster project
conduct. Our interviews show that project managers are very
concerned with their reputation within their companies. Reputa-
tion enables project managers to have better access to company
resources and people (see Fig. 5).
‘In the beginning we have an idea, then a solution,
documentation and after that we start to realize the
software. It is very important that we know exactly what
we are doing. And also that we are checking, doing the right
thing in a way. … so in a way checking that you are
progressing in the right way. … if we are doing something
else than we should be doing, it is no success for anybody, it
76 R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79

Number of links
mentioned
Values
Accomplishment 61%
61%
of
of 329
329
0.61

Alignment & shared Increased project Faster project 49%

49% of
of
Benefits
goals control conduct 276
276
0.17 0.18 0.24

Corporate
Multimedia
support for 20%
20% of
of
Support
Attributes virtual work 276
276

0.11 0.09
Mentioned ≥ 14 times
Mentioned ≥ 9 times
Management Support & Mentioned > 4 times
Infrastructure Resources

Fig. 4. Business and technical support–efficiency–accomplishment link.

is bad for the whole group and also for the company. We are
wasting time and money and resources for wrong things.
Nobody would like to be involved in that kind of thing, doing
something else than you should do…reputation suffers.’
3.4. Good and bad practices
As part of our methodology an immediate reality check for
validation purposes was performed in a 10-minute session at
the end of each interview. The aim was to let the respondents
reflect on their answers and to define a number of good
practices in the area of dispersed project work within their own
company and context. We also asked them to list a number of
practices that could be improved. Good practices mentioned
include the experience of project managers with work in
dispersed settings, the availability of technology support, and
general corporate support. A manager stated for instance:
‘We are quite familiar with working in these kinds of virtual
set-ups and we have normally quite clear assignments. We

Number of links
mentioned
Values Reputation
10%
0.10 of 329

Increased project Faster project

Benefits
control conduct 46% of
276
0.18 0.24

Corporate Clear
support for communi-
virtual work cation rules
0.11 0.11
Multimedia 31% of
Support 276
Attributes
0.09
Mentioned ≥ 14 times
Mentioned ≥ 9 times
Management and multimedia support & Mentioned > 4 times
Clear communication rules

Fig. 5. Corporate support and rules can help to nurture the project manager's reputation via efficiency and control.
 R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79
have the technology in place. We do have a lot of experience
with virtual work, because we work all over the world, in all
the time zones, so people are actually quite experienced.’
Others mentioned a safe environment for information sharing,
autonomy, usable tools and a nice environment for working
virtually, such as ICT support and favorable travel arrangements.
The specific good practices mentioned by the project managers
are in line with the conditions that were valued through the
laddering. When asked about areas for improvement, respondents
addressed the same categories. Also with regard to improvement,
the project managers in our sample specifically indicated
technical support, experience in leading virtual teams, and
overall corporate support as areas of concern. For example, a
project manager states:
“We don't have at all a systematic approach to virtual
teams. The company still is not fully abiding by those
common processes and guidelines and not using the tool
correctly… They are not using the full potential that is there.
Many people are still waiting for those instructions and
therefore, when they haven't been available, those people
who would like to build a virtual team or start a virtual
project, and they are a little bit hesitant.”
4. Conclusion and implications
The goal of this research was to gain a better understanding of
the conditions project managers in dispersed settings perceive
as relevant to get their work done. On the basis of our analysis,
we derive a number of conditions that need to be fulfilled for
successful project execution within dispersed project settings.
These can be categorized into two main categories:
1. Communication/collaboration within the team: i.e., clear
communication rules, openness, and trust.
2. Organizational support, i.e., multi-media and technical support
and corporate support in terms of tools, infrastructure, policies,
rewards, and incentive systems for dispersed work.
Rather than just asking what conditions they would need, we
carefully linked these up to the needs and values of project
managers by applying a Means-End Chain (MEC) analysis. The
use of MEC enables us to understand motivations of project
managers more clearly and ensures comparability of data. Project
managers with experience in working in dispersed work settings
value accomplishment as their most important justification for
their work. Accomplishment is linked to performance as project
managers are usually rewarded in global companies based on
their results (see Shenhar and Dvir, 1996). A good reputation
of a successful project and as a competent manager is another
important value. The message of the good reputation from the
rest of the organization is appreciation, which has been shown to
be an internally motivating reward increasing perceived self-
determination and efforts of employees towards task accomplish-
ment (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Accomplishment and reputation
77
are important drivers for project managers also when they are
involved with situations with a high degree of virtuality.
In order to accomplish their project goals our research
indicates that managers need several conditions to be fulfilled.
For example, managers need corporate support in order to be
successful in the settings with high degrees of “virtuality” as well
as suitable technical support. This is in line with virtual team
literature that also mentions the importance of company support
(Gibson and Cohen, 2003; Lipnack and Stamps, 2000; Montoya
et al., 2009). Kayworth and Leidner (2000) suggest management
should provide different kinds of computer mediated communi-
cation systems as well as training and education to work with
these technologies (see also Townsend et al., 1998). These
prerequisites enable project managers to be more effective in
dealing with the internal team dynamics within their dispersed
teams. Trust among team members and clear communication rules
are necessary in order to get the work done. Project managers
perceive these conditions as vital for faster project conduct,
increased project control and alignment of goals in the project. In
addition, characteristics and competences of a project manager
seem to play a role in successful task accomplishment.
Our findings confirm a number of success conditions that
are currently listed in the growing literature on virtual team
effectiveness. For example, the influence of trust and leadership
practices on the performance of global projects has been confirmed
in many studies (for example, Anantatmula and Thomas, 2010;
Chen and Lee, 2007; Evaristo, 2003). By carefully linking the
success conditions to the needs and values of experienced global
project managers, we are able to get a more detailed overview.
Current literature shows a large number of critical success factors.
Our analysis shows that trust, clear communication, technical
support and overall corporate support are the four most important
conditions for getting the work done in virtual settings. Other
factors that the literature suggests, however, were not directly
perceived as important preconditions for team effectiveness in
dispersed work settings. For instance, diversity mentioned in the
literature as a source of miscommunication (cf. Hertel et al., 2005)
was not directly mentioned by interviewees as a concern for
project managers. Due to the MEC methodology we focused on
individual values, which are based on organizational values.
During the interviews we noticed that many of these project
managers work in multiple teams, both virtual and co-located
simultaneously, and they try to live up to the organizational
cultural values present within their global firm. However, many
of these values are based on traditional ways of working and often
collocated ways of working. Therefore for these project managers
to be rewarded and work on their reputation, it becomes important
that they fit within the organizational values. Due to the fact that
there are fewer possibilities in dispersed project teams to show
accomplishment, to develop a social network, and work on your
reputation, the main values of global virtual project managers are
focused on accomplishing the work within the set requirements.
As seen in our data, accomplishing the project goal might become
even more important for global dispersed project managers than
for project managers with co-located teams, in order to work
conform the organizational cultural values of work. In the reality
check of the MEC method, several project managers discussed the
78 R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79
aspect that the organizational culture is not always supporting
global work and this might be reflected in the presented values in
our data:
‘Company X does offer management tools, they do offer this
video conferencing, teleconferencing and netmeetings et
cetera, but people are still not, it's not their way of working.
That's what fails. Maybe one limitation is also that people
cannot think global.’
‘We have some culture and not with everybody, and how do
you change the attitude and the culture… And of course I say
that we have the technology in place, but maybe… the
obstacle is again culture and attitude and changing your old
habits, that's an obstacle.’
Many of the project managers viewed accomplishment as
important as well as the value of reputation. Accomplishment
was often related to visible outcomes of the project manager
and to their own status and reputation in their company. This
aspect can be related to literature that states that dispersed work
is not only geographical distribution but also social distance
in terms of status, and these two distances reinforce each other
(Metiu, 2006).
Our research has some limitations. First, our MEC method-
ology limits our ability to determine conclusively causality and
the possibility of social desirability. Second, since we have only
gathered data from global high technology companies, the ability
to generalize across other organizations remains in question.
Note that our results are based on the perspective of the project
manager and are therefore limited to corporate projects rather
than open-source ventures.
An important practical implication of our findings is that the
organization of dispersed project teams could benefit from paying
attention to the four main success conditions. Rather than focusing
on various problem areas or organizing the project like any other
kind of project, virtual settings may benefit from starting with
the establishment of trust and clear communication rules. The
activities of dispersed project teams should also be embedded
in the organization and sufficient technical support should be
offered. In spite of its limitations, the results provide further insight
in the way global dispersed teams can be organized in order to
fulfill the needs and values of senior project managers with the
success of the project as the ultimate goal. A specific focus on
trust, clear communication, technical and corporate support could
serve as a useful check-list for the establishment of successful
global dispersed projects.
References
Anantatmula, V., Thomas, M., 2010. Managing global projects: a structured
approach for better performance. Project Management Journal 41, 60–72.
Andriessen, J.H.E., 2002. Group Work and Groupware: Understanding and
Evaluating Computer Supported Interaction. Springer Verlag, London.
Andriessen, J.H.E., Vartiainen, M. (Eds.), 2006. Mobile Virtual work: A New
Paradigm? Springer, Heidelberg.
Artto, K.A., Wikström, K., 2005. What is project business? International
Journal of Project Management 23, 343–353.
Baker, G., 2002. The effects of synchronous collaborative technologies on
decision making: a study of virtual teams. Information Resources Management
Journal 15, 79–93.
Barinaga, E., 2007. ‘Cultural diversity’ at work: ‘national culture’ as a
discourse organizing an international project group. Human Relations 60,
315–340.
Bell, B.S., Kozlowski, S.W.J., 2002. A typology of virtual teams. Implications
for effective leadership. Group and Organization Management 27, 14–49.
Burgoon, J.K., Bonito, J.A., Ramirez Jr., A., Dunbar, N.E., Kam, K., Fischer, J.,
2002. Testing the interactivity principle: effects of mediation, propinquity,
and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of
Communication 52, 657–677.
Cha, S.E., Edmondson, A.C., 2006. When values backfire: leadership, attribution,
and disenchantment in a values-driven organization. The Leadership Quarterly
17, 57–78.
Chen, S.H., Lee, H.T., 2007. Performance evaluation model for project
managers using managerial practices. International Journal of Project
Management 25, 543–551.
Chudoba, K.M., Wynn, E., Lu, M., Watson-Manheim, M.B., 2005. How virtual
we are? Measuring virtuality and understanding its impacts in a global
organization. Information Systems Journal 15, 279–306.
Cramton, C.D., Webber, S.S., 2005. Relationships among geographic
dispersion, team processes, and effectiveness in software development
work teams. Journal of Business Research 58, 758–765.
Davidow, W.H., Malone, M.S., 1992. The Virtual Corporation. Edward
Burlingame Books/Harper Business, New York.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 2000. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human
needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11,
227–268.
Diallo, A., Thuillier, D., 2005. The success of international development
projects, trust and communication: an African perspective. International
Journal of Project Management 23, 237–252.
Duarte, D.L., Snyder, N.T., 1999. Mastering distributed teams. Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco.
Dubé, L., Paré, G., 2004. The multifaceted nature of distributed teams. In:
Pauleen, D.J. (Ed.), Virtual Teams: Projects. Idea Group Publishing,
Hershey, Protocols and Processes, pp. 1–39.
Edmondson, A.C., Nembhard, I.M., 2009. Product development and learning in
project teams: the challenges are the benefits. Journal of Product Innovation
Management 26, 123–138.
Evaristo, R., 2003. The management of distributed projects across cultures.
Journal of Global Information Management 11, 58–70.
Gibson, C.B., Cohen, S.G. (Eds.), 2003. Virtual teams that work. : Creating
Conditions for Virtual Team Effectiveness. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Gibson, C.B., Gibbs, J.L., 2006. Unpacking the concept of virtuality: the effects
of geographical dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and
national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 51,
451–495.
Griffith, T.L., Neale, M.A., 2001. Information processing in traditional, hybrid,
and virtual teams: from nascent knowledge to transactive memory. Research
in Organizational Behavior, vol 23. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 379–421.
Grimshaw, D.J., Kwok, F.T.S., 1998. The business benefits of the virtual
organization, In Gutman, J., 1982. A means-end chain model based on
consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46, 60–72.
Gutman, J., 1982. A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization
processes. Journal of Marketing 46 (2), 60–72.
Hertel, G., Geister, S., Konradt, U., 2005. Managing virtual teams: a review
of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review 15,
69–95.
Huemann, M., 2010. Considering human resource management when
developing a project oriented company: case study of a telecommunication
company. International Journal of Project Management 28, 361–369.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Leidner, D.E., 1999. Communication and trust in global virtual
teams. Organization Science 10, 791–815.
 R.M. Verburg et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 68–79
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Knoll, K., Leidner, D.E., 1998. Is anybody out there?
Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management
Information Systems 14, 26–64.
Karolak, D.W., 1998. Global Software Development: Managing Virtual Teams
and their Environments. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA.
Kaulio, M.A., 2008. Project leadership in multi-project settings: findings from a
critical incident study. International Journal of Project Management 26,
338–347.
Kayworth, T., Leidner, D., 2000. The global distributed manager: a prescription
for success. European Management Journal 18 (2), 183–194.
Keegan, A.E., Den Hartog, D.N., 2004. Transformational leadership in a project
based environment: a comparative study. International Journal of Project
Management 22, 609–617.
Kuruppuarachchi, P.R., 2009. Virtual team concepts in projects: a case study.
Project Management Journal 40, 19–33.
Lee-Kelley, L., Sankey, T., 2008. Global virtual teams for value creation and
project success: a case study. International Journal of Project Management
26, 51–62.
Lipnack, J., Stamps, J., 2000. Virtual teams: people working across boundaries
with technology, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York.
Martins, L.L., Gilson, L.L., Maynard, M.T., 2004. Virtual teams: what do we
know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management 30, 805–835.
Maznevski, M.L., 1994. Understanding our differences: performance in decision-
making groups with diverse members. Human Relations 47, 531–552.
Maznevski, M.L., Chudoba, K.M., 2000. Bridging space over time: global virtual
team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science 11, 473–492.
McDonough, E.F., Kahn, K.B., Barczak, G., 2001. An investigation of the use
of global, virtual, and collocated new product development teams. Journal
of Product Innovation Management 18, 110–120.
Metiu, A., 2006. Owning the code: status closure in distributed groups.
Organization Science 17, 418–435.
Modig, N., 2007. A continuum of organizations formed to carry out projects:
temporary and stationary organization forms. International Journal of
Project Management 25, 807–814.
Montoya, M.M., Massey, A.P., Hung, Y.C., Crisp, C.B., 2009. Can you hear
me now? Communication in virtual product development teams. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 26, 139–155.
Nurmi, N., 2011. Coping with coping strategies: how distributed teams and
their members deal with the stress of distance, time zones and culture. Stress
and Health 27, 123–143.
O'Leary, M.B., Cummings, J.N., 2007. The spatial, temporal, and configura-
tional characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly 31,
433–452.
Olson, J.C., Reynolds, T.J., 1983. Understanding consumer's cognitive
structures: implications for advertising strategy. In: Percy, L., Woodside,
A. (Eds.), Advertising and Consumer Psychology, 1. Lexington Books,
Lexington, pp. 77–90.
Peter, J.P., Olson, J.C., 1987. Consumer behavior. Marketing Strategy
Perspectives. Irwin, Illinois.
Powell, A., Piccoli, G., Ives, B., 2004. Virtual teams: a review of current
literature and directions for future research. The Database for Advances in
Information Systems 35, 6–36.
79
Rad, P.F., Levin, G., 2003. Achieving Project Management Success using
Virtual Teams. Ross Publishing, Boca Raton, Florida.
Raghuram, S., Tuertscher, P., Garud, R., 2010. Mapping the field of virtual
work: A cocitation analysis. Information Systems Research 21, 983–999.
Reynolds, T.J., Gutman, J., 1988. Laddering theory, method, analysis, and
interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research 28, 11–31.
Richter, P., Meyer, J., Sommer, F., 2006. Well-being and stress in mobile and
virtual work. In: Andriessen, J.H., Vartiainen, M. (Eds.), Mobile Virtual
Work — A New Paradigm. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 231–252.
Rosenberg, M., 1956. Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology 53, 367–372.
Schein, E.H., 1985. Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
Schwartz, S.H., 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values:
theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna, M. (Ed.),
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, San Diego,
pp. 1–65.
Schwartz, S.H., 1994. Beyond individualism/collectivism: new cultural di-
mensions of values. In: Kim, U., Triandis, H., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.,
Yoon, G. (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and
Application. Sage, CA, pp. 85–119.
Schweitzer, L., Duxbury, L., 2010. Conceptualizing and measuring the
virtuality of teams. Information Systems Journal 20, 267–295.
Sheard, A.G., Kakabdse, A.P., 2001. Key roles of the leadership landscape.
Journal of Managerial Psychology 17, 129–144.
Shenhar, A., Dvir, D., 1996. Toward a typological theory of project
management. Research Policy 25, 607–632.
Speier, C., Palmer, J., 1998. A definition of virtualness. In: Hoadley, E.D.,
Benbasat, I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth America's Conference on
Information Systems, August 14–16. Baltimore, Maryland, pp. 571–573.
Thirty, M., Deguire, M., 2007. Recent developments in project-based
organisations. International Journal of Project Management 25, 649–658.
Townsend, A.M., DeMarie, S.M., Hendrickson, A.R., 1998. Virtual teams:
technology and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management
Executive 12, 17–29.
Turner, J.R., Huemann, M., Keegan, A.E., 2008. Human Resource Manage-
ment in the Project-oriented Organization. PMI, Newton Square (PA).
Van der Vegt, G.S., Janssen, O., 2003. Joint impact of interdependence and
group diversity on innovation. Journal of Management 29, 729–751.
Watson-Manheim, M.B., Chudoba, K., Crowston, K., 2002. Discontinuities and
continuities: a new way to understand virtual work. Information Technology
& People 15, 191–209.
Wiesenfeld, B.M., Raghuram, S., Garud, R., 1999. Communication patterns as
determinants of organizational identification in a virtual organization.
Organization Science 10, 777–790.
Ziga-Viktorssen, A., Sundström, P., Enwall, M., 2006. Project overload: an
exploratory study of work and management in multi-project settings.
International Journal of Project Management 24, 385–394.
Zigurs, I., 2003. Leadership in virtual teams: oxymoron or opportunity?
Organizational Dynamics 31, 339–351.