Abstract
More nurses and nurse educators today are working distantly in different geographic locations from others, and this includes working from home or satellite locations (Poulsen & Ipsen, 2017). Can we work collaboratively in a purely distance relationship? In academia, collaboration between colleagues is common and often mandated. Being able to engage with others in a collegial manner is necessary, and in some instances the relationship may be purely virtual. This revolution in cognitive capability uses long-distance interactive technology and the structure of professional learning communities. Successful group collaboration is driven by high expectations, shared goals, professionalism, and peer accountability. Such collaboration may be viewed as involving a nonlinear theory of change, with multiple factors influencing processes and outcomes. Factors impacting success include academic considerations (professional goals, disciplinary expertise), nonacademic issues (personal preferences, financial factors), and the development of a culture of trust and collective leadership. Practical strategies to implement such virtual collaboration are discussed.
Distance work may permit increased flexibility and autonomy for employees, which can lead to higher job satisfaction, better morale, and better work-life balance (Boell, Cecez-Kecmanovic, & Campbell, 2016). Although people maybe located distantly, there is a need for them to work together. Due to the growth of virtual technology options, it is possible for colleagues to work remotely on academic projects in ways that were not possible in the past (Caya, Mortensen, & Pinsonneault, 2013). Such collaboration can facilitate improved knowledge and outcomes, assist in solving complex issues, encourage different ways of thinking, and stimulate novel solutions to problems (Bozeman, Gaughan, Youtie, Slade, & Rimes, 2015; Green & Johnson, 2015; National Academy of Sciences, 2005).
Thus, collaboration can now occur virtually, facilitating working groups across geographical distances and different institutions. Such virtual collaboration allows researchers to work with others who may not otherwise have been able to form these collegial relationships. This opportunity brings together individuals with diverse strengths and experience (Breen, 2013), promoting innovation and creativity (Gallagher, 2018). In online learning, collaboration utilizes instructional tools such as discussion boards, drop boxes, white boards, e-mails, and synchronous meetings (Breen, 2013), and virtual collegial collaboration can operate using similar tools. Educators can find many examples of such successful collaboration. Using web-based resources has supported successful research by medical students (Chamberlain, Klaassen, Meadows, Weitzman, & Loukas, 2014); outside the classroom, nursing students and faculty have collaborated internationally using web-based platforms, facilitating an awareness of culture and global health issues (Wihlborg & Friberg, 2016).
Two of the authors have collaborated virtually on many research projects over the past several years, with some projects involving other faculty as well. However, to date, none of the authors of this article have met in person. Many colleagues have expressed amazement at this fact and wonder how such an ongoing virtual relationship can work.
Virtual Teamwork and Collective Leadership
Virtual collaboration has benefits to faculty, students, and institutions across multiple academic disciplines. Instructors often reach out to each other with
Although team members may be working remotely, collaboration is predominantly a social phenomenon.
Although team members may be working remotely, collaboration is predominantly a social phenomenon (Koehne, Shih, & Olson, 2012). Thus, professional collaborator team members must exhibit collective leadership, with each member occupying the role of leader. Training and prior experience on how to function in such groups is often not available, and thus it is important to consider the structure of successful virtual collegial groups (Roy, 2005). One model of virtual teamwork includes the variables of personality and experience, along with knowledge, skills, and motivation. Important characteristics of functional collaborators include the ability to complete work independently, use technology effectively, and work in geographic isolation. Some personality traits associated with effective collaboration are congeniality and conscientiousness; cultural differences must be considered with international collaborations (Schulze & Krumm, 2017).
Work rhythms are an important consideration with virtual collaboration, and include communication behaviors (Green & Johnson, 2015). More frequent and explicit e-mail communication may be necessary, with special attention to timely replies (Geriatric Medicine Research Collaborative, 2018). Sensitivity to time zone differences may require unusually early or late meetings (Koehne et al., 2012). Other forms of communication include video conferencing and sharing documents via various mechanisms (e.g., Google platforms).
Project Planning and Implementation
Prior to beginning collaborative work, although individual goals may differ, it is important to establish mutually agreed-upon group goals (Roy, 2013); team members should recognize that collective participation advances the goals of the team as well as those of individuals. Successful collaboration requires the sharing of responsibility, peer accountability, allocation of resources, and recognition of contributions (Green & Johnson, 2015). With scholarly projects, it is important to create an advance agreement for the project; in larger groups, this should optimally be formally written. Components of the agreement include authorship order, dissemination venues, workload assignments, a project milestone timeline, determination of lead author responsibilities, and preferred technology and scheduling of meetings. It is crucial to avoid authorship disputes during or after a project (Office of Research Integrity, 2015); this includes willingness to work on a project if declined by journals/conferences, and the expectation to participate in time-consuming revisions is often necessary even if accepted. Potential “exit strategies” should also be identified. Group members must also realize that although a timeline may be initially agreed upon, the process of collaboration may not be linear, requiring modifications by consensus.
Virtual Collaboration and Mentoring as a Departmental Initiative
Opportunities to work as deparrmentally based virtual teams are becoming more common in academia (Hakonsson, Obel, Eskildsen, & Burton, 2016). Despite the interest in such scholarly collaboration (Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei, 2007), working virtually creates potential challenges for managers/mentors. Virtual collaboration can lead to conflicts related to cultural, geographical, and time differences (Kankanhalli et al., 2007). Fewer opportunities for in-person interactions may lead to inaccurate assumptions about team members, related to both functional (i.e., level of experience/expertise) and social (i.e., age, race, cultural differences) diversity (Kankanhalli et al., 2007). If not managed successfully, this can negatively affect trust and performance (Dube & Marnewick, 2016; Pinar, Zehir, Kitapçi, & Tanriverdi, 2014). In mentoring virtual departments, limitations of virtual teams require leaders dedicated to mentoring with creative strategies that support diplomacy, collaboration, goal obtainment, and performance (Dube & Marnewick, 2016).
To support the culture, buy-in, and performance of a virtual team, it is important that the mentor considers individual needs. Getting to know team members as individuals can be time-consuming (DeCristofaro, Rosser-Majors, & George, 2019), but is an important first step in creating a dynamic and successful team. This can be accomplished through numerous technology-based methods, but diversity of team member preferences may result in varying responses to each strategy. To optimize effectiveness of communication methods, these response differences should be managed by the mentor, as a means to facilitate productive mentee engagement.
A second crucial capability for a mentor of virtual departmental teams is the effective and transparent communication of specific objectives and goals. Virtual teams can be employed to contribute a vast array of ideas that can support organizational goals (Dube & Marnewick, 2016). Successful dissemination of ideas increases buy-in and supports performance outcomes (Dube & Marnewick, 2016; Latham & Locke, 2006). Mentors should be mindful that these ideas are of indispensable value to the organization.
Additionally, mentors of virtual teams must be authentic. Connelly and Turel (2016) suggest that “… authenticity reflects the unreserved expression of one's true self in everyday life …” (p. 2). Essentially, this modeling of behaviors encourages team members to also be more authentic, more open, and thus more engaged. Authenticity is also suggested to increase trust (Yakovleva, Reilly & Werko, 2010), intrinsic motivation, well-being (Emmerich & Rigotti, 2017), and performance outcomes (Dube & Marnewick, 2016; Latham & Locke, 2006). Therefore, offering opportunities for virtual team members to really know their manager/mentor, as a person as well as a leader, is a valuable consideration.
Our Own Experience
Our ideas for research have been based on individual teaching or practice experience. Once a project is identified, e-mail and phone communications take place; other investigators may be added to our group for consultation regarding research design, methods, and proposed data analysis. Since many projects have involved human subjects, institutional review board approval has been obtained at the university where one author is on the faculty. Prior to implanting the project, we have formal discussions regarding authorship order, a project milestone timeline, process details, work assignments, dissemination venues, associated costs, and utilization of resources. All authors work closely on the manuscript or presentation, and nothing is submitted externally without full approval of all authors.
Factors that have supported our success include frequent communication via e-mail or phone calls. Promptness in replying to communication is crucial, and scheduling accommodates differing work schedules and family obligations. In our dual virtual collaboration, as well as with larger virtual groups, we have found that relational trust, peer accountability, and the personal characteristics of congeniality and conscientiousness as identified by Schulze and Krumm (2017) are extremely important.
Conclusion
Virtual collaboration can be an effective strategy in academia. Suitability of colleagues for remote collaboration is crucial, and characteristics of successful groups include the motivation to produce quality work, meet agreed-upon goals, and have commitment to the success of the project. In addition, all team members must feel empowered to provide honest, constructive feedback to each other, regardless of faculty rank, experience, publication/research background, or discipline. Peer accountability is essential, as is providing rapid response to communications.
Implications for educators include understanding how to structure teams for successful virtual collaboration. It is also essential to be aware of the barriers to effective virtual team interactions, and implement strategies to support the process throughout the project life cycle. In addition to utilizing this approach for academic scholarly endeavors, educators can also employ similar techniques when working on institutional initiatives with remote faculty. In an increasingly global academic world, using technology to bridge the physical gap of distance is important to promote the sharing of ideas, research, and improved outcomes.
Authenticity can increase trust, intrinsic motivation, well-being, and performance outcomes.
Footnotes
Tracy P. George, DNP, RN, APRN-BC, CNE, she, is an Assistant Professor in the School of Health Sciences at Francis Marion University in Florence, South Carolina. Her undergraduate degree was from Davidson College, and she received a Master of Science in Nursing from Vanderbilt University School of Nursing. Her DNP degree was from the Medical University of South Carolina.
Claire DeCristofaro, MD, she, is an Assistant Professor in the College of Arts and Science at Ashford University in San Diego, California. She is a graduate of Hunter College of CUNY and Albert Einstein Medical School in New York City. Her family practice has been in urban New York City, rural Tennessee and South Carolina. Academic appointments have been both traditional and distance educator in various health care and related programs.
Michelle Rosser-Majors, PhD, she, is a Professor in the College of Arts and Science at Ashford University in San Diego, California. She obtained her PhD in Educational Psychology, from the University of Oklahoma. As the program chair for the Bachelor of Arts in Psychology, she is passionate about inspiring educators.
Disclosure. The authors have no relevant financial interest or affiliations with any commercial interests related to the subjects discussed within this article.
Funding. The author(s) received no specific grant or financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.