Team Spirit: The Influence of Psychological Collectivism on the Usage of E-Collaboration Tools

The use of information technologies in virtual teams has become common, but little is known about how psychological factors may affect future usage decisions in this context. Our study focuses on psychological collectivism, which is an individual-level form of collectivism (an individual trait capturing people’s “team spirit” or psychological attachments to groups) and investigates how this trait affects team members’ rational decision making processes. Partial Least Squares analysis applied to data collected from 120 team members suggest that psychological collectivism influences both team-referenced perceptions (confidence in one’s team’s capability) and system-referenced perceptions (the perceived usefulness of the e-collaboration tool), and these factors together affect future usage intentions.

[1]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[2]  Sung S. Kim.  The integrative framework of technology use: an extension and test , 2009 .

[3]  Ofir Turel,et al.  Should I e-collaborate with this group? A multilevel model of usage intentions , 2011, Inf. Manag..

[4]  Hollenbeck,et al.  Decision Accuracy in Computer-Mediated versus Face-to-Face Decision-Making Teams. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[5]  Marshall Scott Poole,et al.  Interpersonal Traits, Complementarity, and Trust in Virtual Collaboration , 2004, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[6]  Rieko Maruta Richardson,et al.  The influence of high/low-context culture and power distance on choice of communication media: Students’ media choice to communicate with Professors in Japan and America , 2007 .

[7]  K. D. Joshi,et al.  Knowledge transfer within information systems development teams: Examining the role of knowledge source attributes , 2007, Decis. Support Syst..

[8]  Douglas E. Shook,et al.  RELATIONSHIPS OF JOB CATEGORIES AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS TO USE OF COMMUNICATION CHANNELS, INCLUDING ELECTRONIC MAIL: A META-ANALYSIS AND EXTENSION* , 1990 .

[9]  G. Hofstede,et al.  Culture′s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values , 1980 .

[10]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[11]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  Technology Adoption by Groups: A Valence Perspective , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[12]  Ofir Turel,et al.  Interdependence Issues in Analyzing Negotiation Data , 2010 .

[13]  William R. King,et al.  A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model , 2006, Inf. Manag..

[14]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[15]  M. Maznevski,et al.  Bridging Space Over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness , 2000 .

[16]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Effect of Multimedia on Perceived Equivocality and Perceived Usefulness of Information Systems , 2000, MIS Q..

[17]  Jerald Greenberg,et al.  The College Sophomore as Guinea Pig: Setting the Record Straight , 1987 .

[18]  Saonee Sarker,et al.  Technology Adoption by Groups: A Test of Twin Predictions based on Social Structure and Technological Characteristics , 2006 .

[19]  Ofir Turel,et al.  Does virtual team composition matter? Trait and problem-solving configuration effects on team performance , 2010, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[20]  Mun Y. Yi,et al.  Understanding the Role of Individual Innovativeness in the Acceptance of IT-Based Innovations: Comparative Analyses of Models and Measures , 2006, Decis. Sci..

[21]  George A. Marcoulides,et al.  Modern methods for business research , 1998 .

[22]  Sheryl L. Shivers-Blackwell.  Reactions to outdoor teambuilding initiatives in MBA education , 2004 .

[23]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  Why do individuals use computer technology? A Finnish case study , 1995, Inf. Manag..

[24]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Testing Media Richness Theory in the New Media: The Effects of Cues, Feedback, and Task Equivocality , 1998, Inf. Syst. Res..

[25]  M. Wesson,et al.  Psychological collectivism: a measurement validation and linkage to group member performance. , 2006, The Journal of applied psychology.

[26]  David A. Harrison,et al.  Meta-analysis, level of analysis, and best estimates of population correlations: Cautions for interpreting meta-analytic results in organizational behavior , 1999 .

[27]  Dorothy E. Leidner,et al.  Review: A Review of Culture in Information Systems Research: Toward a Theory of Information Technology Culture Conflict , 2006, MIS Q..

[28]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[29]  Jan-Bernd Lohmöller,et al.  Latent Variable Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares , 1989 .

[30]  C. Cramton.  The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration , 2001 .

[31]  J. Hollenbeck,et al.  Computer-assisted communication and team decision-making performance: the moderating effect of openness to experience. , 2002 .

[32]  Kang Yang Trevor Yu,et al.  Managing job seekers' organizational image beliefs: the role of media richness and media credibility. , 2006, The Journal of applied psychology.

[33]  Yufei Yuan,et al.  User Acceptance of Web-Based Negotiation Support Systems: The Role of Perceived Intention of the Negotiating Partner to Negotiate Online , 2007 .

[34]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Media, Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of Media Synchronicity , 2008, MIS Q..

[35]  D. Sandy Staples,et al.  Comparing Virtual Teams to Traditional Teams: An Identification of New Research Opportunities , 2006 .

[36]  J HindsPamela,et al.  Understanding Conflict in Geographically Distributed Teams , 2005 .

[37]  Petru Lucian Curseu,et al.  Emergent states in virtual teams: a complex adaptive systems perspective , 2006, J. Inf. Technol..

[38]  Ad de Jong,et al.  Antecedents and Consequences of Group Potency: A Study of Self-Managing Service Teams , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[39]  N. Selwyn.  `Doing IT for the Kids': Re-examining Children, Computers and the `Information Society' , 2003 .

[40]  G. Johns.  The Essential Impact of Context on Organizational Behavior , 2006 .

[41]  David J. Pauleen,et al.  Relationship building and the use of ICT in boundary-crossing virtual teams: a facilitator's perspective , 2001, J. Inf. Technol..

[42]  Paul R. Yost,et al.  Potency in groups: articulating a construct. , 1993, The British journal of social psychology.

[43]  John W. Whiteoak,et al.  The Relationship among Group Process Perceptions, Goal Commitment and Turnover Intention in Small Committee Groups , 2007 .

[44]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Technology adaption: the case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team 1 , 2000 .

[45]  Moez Limayem,et al.  How Habit Limits the Predictive Power of Intention: The Case of Information Systems Continuance , 2007, MIS Q..

[46]  E. B. Andersen,et al.  Modern factor analysis , 1961 .

[47]  Catherine E. Connelly,et al.  Information systems research and Hofstede's culture's consequences: an uneasy and incomplete partnership , 2003, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[48]  Dov Te'eni,et al.  Review: A Cognitive-Affective Model of Organizational Communication for Designing IT , 2001, MIS Q..

[49]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory , 1994 .

[50]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice , 2000, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[51]  Paul A. Pavlou,et al.  Cultural Diversity and Trust in IT Adoption: A Comparison of Potential e-Voters in the USA and South Africa , 2005, J. Glob. Inf. Manag..

[52]  Nick Bontis,et al.  User acceptance of wireless short messaging services: Deconstructing perceived value , 2007, Inf. Manag..

[53]  Mark A. Fuller,et al.  Efficacy in Technology-Mediated Distributed Teams , 2006, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[54]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  Are Individual Differences Germane to the Acceptance of New Information Technologies , 1999 .

[55]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 1999 .

[56]  Subhasish Dasgupta,et al.  User Acceptance of E-Collaboration Technology: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model , 2002 .

[57]  Laku Chidambaram,et al.  Is Out of Sight, Out of Mind? An Empirical Study of Social Loafing in Technology-Supported Groups , 2005, Inf. Syst. Res..

[58]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  A Practical Guide To Factorial Validity Using PLS-Graph: Tutorial And Annotated Example , 2005, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[59]  D. Marc Kilgour,et al.  Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation , 2014, Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation.

[60]  Philip Bobko,et al.  An Investigation of the Antecedents and Consequences of Group‐Level Confidence1 , 2002 .

[61]  S. Holloway,et al.  Cyberkids? Exploring Children’s Identities and Social Networks in On-line and Off-line Worlds , 2002 .

[62]  Heather M. Coon,et al.  Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. , 2002, Psychological bulletin.

[63]  Barbara H Wixom,et al.  A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance , 2005, Inf. Syst. Res..

[64]  Andrew May,et al.  A case study of virtual team working in the European automotive industry , 2001 .

[65]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  Adoption intention in GSS: relative importance of beliefs , 1995, DATB.

[66]  Kara A. Incalcaterra,et al.  A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[67]  M. Audrey Korsgaard,et al.  The Antecedents and Consequences of Group Potency: A Longitudinal Investigation of Newly Formed Work Groups , 2002 .

[68]  Steven C. Currall,et al.  Conflict Escalation: Dispute Exacerbating Elements of E-mail Communication , 2003 .

[69]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Predicting Collaboration Technology Use: Integrating Technology Adoption and Collaboration Research , 2010, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[70]  Heshan Sun,et al.  The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[71]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[72]  Sung S. Kim,et al.  Out of Dedication or Constraint? A Dual Model of Post-Adoption Phenomena and its Empirical Test in the Context of Online Services , 2009, MIS Q..

[73]  Alexander Serenko,et al.  User acceptance of hedonic digital artifacts: A theory of consumption values perspective , 2010, Inf. Manag..

[74]  H. Triandis.  Individualism And Collectivism , 1995 .

[75]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Specifying Formative Constructs in Information Systems Research , 2007, MIS Q..

[76]  G. Hofstede,et al.  Culture′s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values , 1980 .

[77]  Ojelanki K. Ngwenyama,et al.  Communication Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical Social Theory and the Contextuality of Meaning , 1997, MIS Q..

[78]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Understanding Conflict in Geographically Distributed Teams: The Moderating Effects of Shared Identity, Shared Context, and Spontaneous Communication , 2005 .

[79]  A. Bandura.  Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy.

[80]  J. McGrath.  Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP) , 1991 .

[81]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[82]  Wynne W. Chin.  The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. , 1998 .

[83]  M. Markus.  Electronic Mail as the Medium of Managerial Choice , 1994 .

[84]  N. Kock,et al.  Media richness or media naturalness? The evolution of our biological communication apparatus and its influence on our behavior toward E-communication tools , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[85]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Message Equivocality, Media Selection, and Manager Performance: Implications for Information Systems , 1987, MIS Q..

[86]  John Byrne,et al.  Antecedents and consequences of team potency in software development projects , 2007, Inf. Manag..

[87]  Xiaolan Fu,et al.  The Impact of Individualism—Collectivism, Social Presence, and Group Diversity on Group Decision Making Under Majority Influence , 2007, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[88]  Vincent S. Lai,et al.  The adoption and use of collaboration information technologies: international comparisons , 2005, J. Inf. Technol..

[89]  S. Weisband.  Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups , 1992 .