Virtual team interaction styles: assessment and effects

The virtual team is an increasingly common strategic work unit of many organizations. The virtual team, via various computer-based media (e.g. email, groupware) and noncomputer-based media (e.g. telephone), can interact and collaborate though separated by distance and time. One approach to their study is determining whether factors that drive conventional team performance also exist in the virtual environment. Interaction style has been shown to have a great effect on conventional teams' ability to achieve solution quality and solution acceptance on collaborative decision tasks (Hirokawa, 1985; Watson & Michaelsen 1988; Hirokawa & Gouran, 1989; Cooke & Szumal, 1994). Group interaction styles affect communication and thus team performance by facilitating or hindering the exchange of information among group members. These styles reflect an aggregation of behavioral traits of individual team members, rooted in their individual personalities. The interaction style of conventional teams can be reliably assessed, and from that assessment, performance on collaborative decision tasks can be predicted. This study investigated whether or not virtual teams who collaborate via computer-mediated communication also exhibit similar interaction styles, and whether the styles have the same effects on their decision performance and process outcomes as they do with conventional teams. Members of 42 virtual teams completed an intellective decision first individually and then collaboratively. Post-task measures captured individual and team performance data (e.g. solution quality) as well as process perceptions (individual acceptance of the team solution). An additional post-task tool was able to accurately capture the teams' interaction style. Results show that the interaction styles of virtual teams affect both performance and process outcomes in ways that are directionally consistent with those exhibited by conventional face-to-face teams. Implications include recommending the methodology for virtual team management, and suggestions for future research are offered.

[1]  J. Hackman,et al.  Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration , 1975 .

[2]  R. Darlington,et al.  Regression and Linear Models , 1990 .

[3]  Randolph B. Cooper,et al.  The Effect of Computer-Mediated Communication on Agreement and Acceptance , 1999, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[4]  Randy Hirokawa Discussion Procedures and Decision-Making Performance: A Test of a Functional Perspective. , 1985 .

[5]  Anthony R. Hendrickson,et al.  Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future , 1998 .

[6]  Stanley Schachter,et al.  Theory and experiment in social communication. , 1950 .

[7]  N. Maier Assets and liabilities in group problem solving: the need for an integrative function. , 1967, Psychological review.

[8]  R. A. Cooke,et al.  The Impact of Group Interaction Styles on Problem-Solving Effectiveness , 1994 .

[9]  M. Lindell,et al.  A Revised Index of Interrater Agreement for Multi-Item Ratings of a Single Target , 1999 .

[10]  G. Stasser,et al.  Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Biased Information Sampling During Discussion , 1985 .

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

[12]  S. R. Hiltz,et al.  Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. , 1986 .

[13]  A. Hollingshead Information Suppression and Status Persistence in Group Decision Making The Effects of Communication Media , 1996 .

[14]  M. Lindell,et al.  Assessing interrater agreement on the job relevance of a test: A comparison of CVI, T, r-sub(WG(J)), and r*-sub(WG(J)) indexes. , 1999 .

[15]  Mary D. Zalesny Rater confidence and social influence in performance appraisals , 1990 .

[16]  L. Richard Hoffman,et al.  Applying Experimental Research on Group Problem Solving to Organizations , 1979 .

[17]  G. W. Hill Group versus individual performance: are n + 1 heads better than one?" psychological bulletin , 1982 .

[18]  Merrill Warkentin,et al.  Virtual Teams versus Face-to-Face Teams: An Exploratory Study of a Web-based Conference System* , 1997 .

[19]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .

[20]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  An Assessment of Group Support Systems Experimental Research: Methodology and Results , 1998, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[21]  J. McGrath Groups: Interaction and Performance , 1984 .

[22]  J. Walther Computer-Mediated Communication , 1996 .

[23]  L. James,et al.  rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. , 1993 .

[24]  J. King,et al.  Hardwiring Weak Ties: Interorganizational Computer-Mediated Communication, Occupational Communities, and Organizational Change , 1995 .

[25]  J. Walther Relational Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication: Experimental Observations over Time , 1995 .

[26]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision-Making Groups , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[27]  Wendy Samter,et al.  DECISION‐MAKING PROCEDURE AND DECISION QUALITY , 1984 .

[28]  J. Walther Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1992 .

[29]  Deborah L. Duarte,et al.  Mastering Virtual Teams , 2000 .

[30]  A. Hollingshead The Rank-Order Effect in Group Decision Making , 1996 .

[31]  B CooperRandolph,et al.  The effect of computer-mediated communication on agreement and acceptance , 1999 .

[32]  R. A. Cooke,et al.  Measuring Normative Beliefs and Shared Behavioral Expectations in Organizations: The Reliability and Validity of the Organizational Culture Inventory , 1993 .

[33]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  A disagreement about within-group agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. , 1992 .

[34]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Network Nation: Human Communication Via Computer , 1979 .

[35]  R. Rice,et al.  Electronic Emotion , 1987 .

[36]  N. Maier Problem-solving discussions and conferences : leadership methods and skills , 1963 .

[37]  Preston C. Bottger Expertise and air time as bases of actual and perceived influence in problem-solving groups. , 1984 .

[38]  Ken T. Trotman,et al.  Member Variation, Recognition of Expertise, and Group Performance , 1987 .

[39]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  Information Is What You Make of It: The Influence of Group History and Computer Support on Information Sharing, Decision Quality, and Member Perceptions , 1998, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[40]  Arthur S Blaiwes,et al.  Measurement of Team Behaviors in a Navy Environment , 1986 .

[41]  Blake Ives,et al.  The Global Network Organization of the Future: Information Management Opportunities and Challenges , 1994, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[42]  Philip Yetton,et al.  Individual versus group problem solving: An empirical test of a best-member strategy , 1982 .

[43]  C. Cooper,et al.  International review of industrial and organizational psychology , 1986 .

[44]  Carolyn Prince,et al.  An Overview of Team Performance Measurement , 1997 .

[45]  Suzanne P. Weisband,et al.  Evaluating self and others in electronic and face-to-face groups. , 1999 .

[46]  Richard E. Potter,et al.  Cross-cultural issues in virtual team support: Communication characteristics and task/technology perceptions from Mexican and U.S. team members , 2000 .

[47]  S. R. Hiltz The Network Nation , 1978 .

[48]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group decision making and communication technology , 1992 .

[49]  Bernard C. Y. Tan,et al.  A dialogue technique to enhance electronic communication in virtual teams , 2000 .

[50]  Jennifer M. George,et al.  Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. , 1990 .

[51]  Dennis S. Gouran,et al.  Facilitation of Group Communication , 1989 .

[52]  Ross Hightower,et al.  Effects of Communication Mode and Prediscussion Information Distribution Characteristics on Information Exchange in Groups , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[53]  L. James,et al.  Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. , 1984 .

[54]  E. Salas,et al.  Team performance assessment and measurement , 1997 .

[55]  J. Walther Anticipated Ongoing Interaction Versus Channel Effects on Relational Communication in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1994 .

[56]  Jessica Lipnack,et al.  Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space, Time, and Organizations with Technology , 1997 .

[57]  R. A. Cooke,et al.  Estimating the Difference Between Group Versus Individual Performance on Problem-Solving Tasks , 1987 .

[58]  Richard E. Potter,et al.  Supporting Integrative Negotiation via Computer Mediated Communication Technologies , 2000 .

[59]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group processes in computer-mediated communication☆ , 1986 .

[60]  Warren E. Watson,et al.  Group Interaction Behaviors that Affect Group Performance on an I ntellective Task , 1988 .

[61]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Getting a Clue , 1996 .