Virtual Culture

Abstract

Businesses, most often startup companies, have seized on the potential for creating a so-called virtual culture to sustain a radical new business model, replacing the traditional concept of a workplace with a community of networked individuals working for the same company, pursuing the same agenda, but working in the field or working at home. Such a business culture is not bound by an actual workplace but rather defined by a vast, at times international, workplace threaded and defined by a common vision as well as by computer connections.

Overview

The theory of virtual culture draws on a socioeconomic construct that predates classic antiquity. The great civilizations of Greece and then Rome were seen largely as templates of the idea that peoples who share geographical/political/and economic space inevitably create a community of shared ideas, shared values and customs, artistic conceptions, and even shared perceptions of the mechanics of the universe, how the cosmos works, and a synthetic culture that survives the lives and deaths of its individual members. Culture provides a sturdy yet flexible social webbing for individuals as a way for each individual to displace potential anxieties from feelings of isolation or from private identity crises. But what happens to the traditional conception of a culture bound to a specific place when the world, indeed the very idea of space and place, has been redefined by the reach and scope of the internet? In the era of technology, virtual cultures have become a particularly vexing template—can individuals find the same sense of community via the internet, through social media, through blogs, through bulletin boards, through network associations uncomplicated by face to face encounters and unbound to a specific geographical space?

The internet has entirely reshaped traditional perceptions of boundaries and the conservative notion of geography itself. How does time and space, real time and physical space, fit a cyberworld defined by digital technologies? Does an individual accessing the internet in, say, Iowa, forsake any conservative bindings to American culture as the simulated transnational world of the web envelops him or her? The construction of a culture, long defined by an actual shared space, began to evolve into a broader, more abstract community as the influence of the internet first emerged in the 1990s.

Initially, a virtual culture was dismissed as the vaguely shady subculture of stereotypical, socially awkward adolescents hooked on video games and fantasy role playing online, tech addicts with few social skills who freely abandoned the shabby ordinary world of family, school, relationships, and work, to inhabit a simulated environment of magic, dragons, cyborgs, knights, wizards, and trolls. It was a world largely prohibited to those who lacked not only interest but also tech competencies and hence a fiercely guarded culture, much like any geopolitical entity since ancient China. Because second- and third-generation video games (and the accompanying software applications) quickly created an international community of gamers, the term virtual culture came to define this culture so mediated by computers, sustained by those who could manipulate technology to defy reality and even create substitute identities. In its earliest application, the term virtual culture served as a kind of cautionary term—be careful of the intoxicating pull of the artificial worlds of the internet.

Pop culture historians were certainly troubled by the concept of a simulated world somehow becoming a culture, virtual or otherwise. Could individuals who never meet, who never see one another in person, and who do not engage one another save within a simulated game world actually function as a traditional culture? It seemed a stretch. But the reach of the internet continued to expand exponentially as new generations of technology came and went over just a few years. The inhabitants of this virtual culture maintained their allegiance and the integrity of their cultural frame. As Steve G. Jones, who has written extensively about the emergence of virtual cultures, said, "We are struck, as we use the internet, by the sense that there are others out there like us" (2002). It was observed in the game world, much as in more traditional cultures, that people shared a common space as well as a common vision, goal, protocol for interaction, set of symbols, and conception of the meaning of that community. These were all traditional hallmarks of traditional cultures.

As the internet itself emerged and its information sharing potential grew exponentially, virtual culture quickly evolved from the subcultures of gamers into a far broader conception of a virtual community, a global network of individuals who shared values and beliefs with others, even if those others were not within their geographical zone. "The synthetic worlds . . . emerging from the computer games industry, these playgrounds of the imagination, [became] an important host of ordinary human affairs" (Castronova, 2005). During the 1990s, websites dedicated to a variety of causes and enthusiasms linked individuals into virtual cultures. Individuals marginalized within traditional cultures—LGBT people, religious groups, minority ethnicities—found community through communications online. Political and environmental causes and a wide variety of activist organizations tapped into the global reach of the internet to create a virtual culture, a virtual nation as it were, thus empowering what had been isolated individuals and creating a community of the like-minded. The aggressively democratic nature of these virtual cultures suggested an identifying moniker: the people's platform.

Within a handful of years, the proliferation of such virtual cultures defeated attempts to catalog and identify them all. On perhaps the more trivial side, there were other virtual cultures: fans of long-running television shows, movie and book serials, successful (and even unsuccessful) sports franchises, pop music icons—all generated virtual cultures online, bringing together those interested in swapping information, trivia, insights, and personal updates about their shared interest. Within a single decade, boundaries were defined and then redefined as technology expanded—online communication was quickly augmented by blogs, bulletin boards, cell phones, social media, memes, YouTube, and Usenet.

Perhaps the most notorious manifestation of virtual culture during the 1990s was the emerging online pornography underworld where individuals sharing a fetish or fascination could freely interact with others of the same inclination. In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the internet quickly became a hot-wired geography of contesting virtual cultures of militant theoreticians and fanatics, political and religious anarchists, and terrorist cells that could see in the boundary-less culture of the web the possibility of defining and sustaining an international presence.

Applications

It was the application of the concept of a virtual culture to the business model emerging in the digital age that gave virtual culture its most significant manifestation. Within the widening reach of the internet and the rapid conversion of businesses to digital processes, businesses, particularly startup companies founded by younger entrepreneurs comfortable with the technology and able to envision even broader uses, could no longer function entirely within a building or even a network of buildings. Executives and project managers routinely relied on technology to guide and develop projects as businesses aggressively sought to succeed globally. As businesses converted to the opportunities of the digital age their workforces relied on mobility and, given the increasing networking of computer sources, employees could opt to work from different locations, such as from home. "With the growth of CMC [computer mediated communication], particularly from use of the Internet, a new set of possibilities for community and nation formation emerged" (Mitra, 2002).

Ultimately, the premise of the virtual workplace these "crafted spaces inside computers . . . designed to accommodate large numbers of people" (Castronova, 2002), held that any business, whatever the commodity or service involved, is essentially about exchanging of information, from pitching new business to distributing paychecks to interviewing new talent. Business is centrally about moving information efficiently and effectively, securely and reliably. Businesses' communication grids widened to include employees both onsite and those working from home. The business model that had for generations defined corporate success (a building, a managed environment, full of working employees, answering to a supervisor within the same complex, freely trading information around and across hallways and around water coolers and break rooms, maintaining both a work environment and a social network of friendships and, at times, rivalries, but always maintaining the human factor as critical to building a corporate team) had simply begun to lose its relevancy. Telecommuting has changed corporate culture (Rafter, 2012).

As businesses grow and ambitiously seek a more global presence, businesses have begun to recognize the potential of setting up a virtual culture, with employees committed to the company's mission and answerable to the same management but not confined by the traditional business complex. "Virtuality exists where IT is used to enhance organizational activities while reducing the need for physical or formalized structures" (Burn 2013). By threading a network of communication avenues, businesses can minimize the physical plant expenses associated with maintaining a network facility while maximizing productivity as workers often find greater impetus to work if separated from the distractions of the typical business site. The forging of a common purpose and the pursuit of creating a successful network despite not sharing a physical space is the work of the technology that enables immediate communication, providing what Kevin Robins, who has emerged as a prophet of the virtual culture in the business place, has termed "cognitive transcendence" (2002).

Businesses that have committed resources and long-term planning into developing a virtual workplace, however, understand that the real challenge is not to create the virtual workplace. "Virtual technologies have implications for knowledge, and consequently for the contemporary elites who live by knowledge" (Robins, 2002). The technology is already in place for that (and always evolving into more efficient and more secure networks of information communication). The field and home are rapidly becoming the new worksites. Therein lies a problem—how to create synergy. The challenge is to create a virtual culture; that is, to create a sense of community and commonality among employees who may never actually see one another face to face and whose conception of supervisors is centrally a perception garnered from computer screens and teleconferences. In simply eliminating the social dynamic of the workplace—with its meetings and conferences, the white noise of the cubicle rows, the free exchange of information, news, ideas, even gossip, the physical anchorage of the shared business space—businesses have begun to develop a plethora of practical ideas to maintain a community feel among employees linked only by internet connections, thus creating a virtual culture.

Viewpoints

Critics of the virtual workplace template argue that computer networking is by definition an isolating act, that workers left to their own devices either in the field or at home must deal with inevitable feelings of dislocation and separation and remoteness (Lehrer, 2012). Natives to the virtual culture can easily feel anonymous knowing the existence of a central workplace somewhere else and hence losing out on that camaraderie. Does the remote worker belong or not, does the citizen in the company's virtual culture actually exist? Who guides the work day of such long-distance employees? Questions have been raised about incentives to maintain a traditional work day. The absence of the physical environment, or work as a place a person goes to, surely impacts the team feel essential to productivity. But advocates of virtual culture point out employers now look specifically for employees who are self-motivated and self-confident, and who actually thrive in a more independent environment. Indeed almost as quickly as virtual cultures have become a reality in business, there have emerged significant guidelines to help sustain the virtual culture, strategies to remediate the feelings of isolation and anonymity.

How? Businesses encourage workers in the virtual culture to communicate, to use the technology and to circulate not only information related to the business but also the more traditional types of office communications—termed digital conversations—news about family and even vacation photos. When virtual teams hold meetings, which might be the source of some of the only real-time, live conversation between employees, it is suggested that they engage in conversations unrelated to work to begin the interaction to help establish a sense of trust and even companionship (Fortune, 2018). More important, to create the virtual culture essential to a successful network-place, businesses craft mission statements, broad conceptual definitions of the virtues the company espouses (respect, trust, integrity, personal achievement). Remote employees are frequently asked to make the mission statement part of the lexicon of their projects—creating a core of shared beliefs typical of any culture. "When leadership enacts decisions based on [a business's] core values, [remote] employees follow suit and then kindly pressure each other to do the same" (Eight ways, 2013). In general, whether a company is entirely remote or allows some telecommuting on an approval basis, experts emphasize that managers and other company leaders should have positive attitudes about the productive value of remote work when it is incorporated to ensure that the system receives the necessary support and remote employees are not hampered by a negative perception of their role (Dunn, 2018).

In addition, employers provide structure for remote employees, essentially defining the work day and work week as well as expectations and goals. These employees are often directed to maintain a kind of workplace environment—to dress appropriately, to maintain a consistent work day schedule, to plan breaks and lunches appropriately, to keep a neat and tidy desk space saved exclusively for work, and to eliminate distractions that would be inappropriate at the workplace (television, loud music, alcohol, constant snacks, pets, children, web surfing, significant others, friends). In an effort to help sustain a viable virtual culture, companies have used cutting edge software to create a neutral webspace where remote employees can voice their concerns, offer candid critiques of their co-workers, even their supervisors, and share complaints about work assignments, promotion rates, even salaries in a protected nonjudgmental space. Giving a voice to their frustrations, advocates of virtual cultures argue, is essential in maintaining a committed workforce.

Perhaps the most significant strategy a business engages to maintain the shape and integrity of a virtual culture is to provide periodic face time for these remote employees by hosting weekend getaways or holiday seminars in real time, where these employees can actually meet one another, engage in teambuilding activities, enjoy meals together, and establish critical personal familiarities as a way to shape a community. Executives make presentations that pitch teamwork and stress the company credo and acknowledge the work of these remote employees who often can feel underappreciated, even ignored. Companies are increasingly committing to virtual culture and to fostering long-term commitments and a sense of belonging and shared goals, all central to any culture, virtual or otherwise.

Terms & Concepts

Cognitive transcendence: The ability of digital communication to offer its participants a feeling of moving beyond the separation implicit in computer communication.

Computer-mediated communication: The exchange of information, ideas, and opinions exclusively through computer technologies including emails, conference calls, Skype, Usenet, as well all genres of social media.

Culture: A shared set of beliefs, traditions, and ideas, associated with a people who share a common geography and who, in turn, transmit those sets of beliefs to the next generations.

Digital conversations: The internet communiques, sponsored and even encouraged by business, that foster a community feel among remote employees by giving them the opportunity to share personal news.

Human factor: The elements standard in face-to-face encounters, the sum total of the physical presence of others as a shaping force for creating a team feel to a business, for instance the give and take of conversation, the sounds and sights of others, the impact of chat as well as touching and handshaking and other routine physical contacts.

People's Platform: The socio-cultural theory that the internet has provided entire peoples who do not share a common environment but do share common interests and common agendas to forge that community via the internet through websites, blogs, and social media.

Bibliography

Burn, J., Marshall, P., & Jarnett, M. (2013). E-Business strategies for virtual organizations. Woburn, MA: Heinemann.

Castranova, E. (2005). Synthetic worlds: The business and culture of online games. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Blake, C. M. (2013). 8 ways to create a powerful virtual culture. Retrieved December 25, 2014 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2013/05/13/8-steps-to-create-a-powerful-virtual-culture/2/

Dunn, E. (2018). Making it work remotely. Entrepreneur, 46(7), 20–21. Retrieved October 23, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=131140080&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Fortune, S. (2018). The defining factor. Training Journal, 18–19. Retrieved October 23, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=128509688&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Jones, S. G., (Ed.). (2002). Virtual culture: Identity and communication in cybersociety. 2nd. ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lehrer. J. (2012, January 30). Groupspeak: The brainstorming myth. Retrieved December 25, 2014 from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/01/30/groupthink

Liang, C., et al. (2016). Influences of organizational culture on knowledge sharing in an online virtual community: Interactive effects of trust, communication and leadership. Journal of Organizational & End User Computing, 28(4), 15–32. Retrieved December 7, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=117541834&site=eds-live

Mitra, A. (2002). Virtual commonality: Looking for India on the Internet. In S. Jones (Ed.), Virtual culture: Identity and communication in cybersociety. (pp. 55-80). London, UK: Sage.

Rafter, M. V. (2012). Cultivating a virtual culture. Workforce Online. Retrieved December 25, 2014 from http://www.workforce.com/articles/cultivating-a-virtual-culture

Robins, K., & Webster, F. (2002). Prospects of a virtual culture. Science as Culture 11 235–256. Retrieved March 22, 2015 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=6790429&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Birdie, A. K. (2016). Organizational behavior and virtual work: Concepts and analytical approaches. Oakville, NJ: Apple Academic Press.

Harvey, T. R. (2004). Building teams, building people: Expanding the fifth resource. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Lepsinger, R., & DeRosa, D. (2010). Virtual team success: A practical guide for working and leading from a distance. Hoboken, NJ: Pfeiffer/Wiley.

Pullan, P. (2016). Virtual leadership: Practical strategies for getting the best out of virtual work and virtual teams. Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page.

Schachtner, C. (2015). Transculturality in the Internet: Culture flows and virtual publics. Current Sociology, 63, 228–243. Retrieved March 22, 2015 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=100948348&site=ehost-live

Schulzke, M. (2014). The virtual culture industry: Work and play in virtual worlds. Information Society, 30, 20–30. Retrieved March 22, 2015 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=94240461&site=ehost-live

Sköld, O. (2015). Documenting virtual world cultures. Journal of Documentation, 71, 294–316. Retrieved March 22, 2015 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=101100491&site=ehost-live

Taylor, A. (2014). The people's platform: Taking back power and culture in the digital age. New York, NY: Metropolitan.