THE MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS OF GOING VIRTUAL

Organizationally the ability to communicate virtually brings increased productivity and opportunity. Getting more out of going virtual requires placing an in-depth understanding of virtuality along side organizational context in terms of organizational aims as well as managing the tensions which arise out of those unique organizational contexts. It involves constantly appraising ICT technology convergence and advancement to establish and re-establish what virtuality and virtual networking mean.

The first managerial implication is that managers must be aware of the nature of virtuality in terms of the strategic intent of the organization. Beyond increases in operational productivity, strategically must the more abstract interaction of the virtual world be countered or is it an enabler of the aim? More specifically, if an organization wishes to share knowledge without any variation or interpretation, meaning without any knowledge creation, within a confined community, then going virtual can be problematic, especially if counter measures are not taken to reduce the chances of knowledge creation, community boundaries being broken or made impenetrable, and sharing being reduced through a lack of trust. Thus, e-mails can be sent to the wrong group of people, the content of chat-rooms can be far more risqué than would be the case face to face, interest groups can self-organise to lobby against convention, people can appear to be other than they really are, and/or the message can be misinterpreted with negative outcomes.

However, where knowledge creation is desired, then these supposed disadvantages can be turned into advantages. For example, a lack of physical shared context within virtual environments can create a way of sharing knowledge that is tacit, abstract, difficult to describe but which can also be a source of core competence. Engineers working within CADCAM systems across organizational sites is an example of how going virtual can create a way of communicating unique to that community and difficult to imitate. The challenge here is to understand the way of creating and sharing knowledge and how it might be preserved.

Equally, intranet chat rooms aimed at sharing of ideas can be more innovative because of the lack of social context. In this sense going virtual allows managers to; take risks they would not do in face to face settings, more easily misinterpret others to create new knowledge, not allow sources of bias present in face to face encounters to creep into knowledge sharing and creation, participate in conversations which they might otherwise not participate in because they are shy or do not know that the conversation is taking place because the conversation is within strict boundaries. Thus, the anonymous, self-organizing characteristics of going virtual can be advantageous.

On important question remains: as technology becomes more advanced, converging to bring the use of all senses into the virtual realm and as it pervades our everyday lives, will virtuality become as real, as normal, as common as physicality? Virtuality exists in the making as individuals and technologies co-evolve. Indeed, “real virtuality” is talked of, in which within a virtual setting, reality (that is people’s material and symbolic nature) is captured and exchanged. Perhaps real virtuality is not a channel through which to experience a more abstract, networked life—it is life, it is the experience.

So to conclude, organizations must be aware of whether the aim within the virtual space is to reconsider reality and to create knowledge or to communicate reality with no creation of knowledge. In either case the moderating role of power in knowledge flows, the manipulation of front and back regions, as well as the dynamics and nature of community membership must be appreciated and managed appropriately.

Finally as part of our social fabric, virtuality is becoming more natural and more traditional in the sense we are becoming more accustomed to the role it plays in our lives, the technology that underpins it, the opportunities it brings. Perhaps “going virtual” above all involves accepting that virtuality is as real as reality, but needs to be equally managed based on in-depth understanding and reflexive practice.