The Impact of Communication Medium on Virtual Team Group Process

Organizations must provide appropriate work group structures and communication technologies in order for work groups to function effectively and efficiently. This study investigated the hypotheses that team structure e.g., fully collocated teams vs. virtual teams and communication mode i.e., face-to-face vs. videoconferencing will impact virtual team group processes e.g., team orientation, workload sharing, proclivity to seek and exchange information that evolve. Furthermore, these group processes will dictate team member information exchange patterns e.g., across all team members vs. only within collocated subgroups, which subsequently impact team productivity i.e., accuracy and timeliness and group process satisfaction. Four-person teams worked in either face-to-face i.e., fully collocated group or videoconferencing i.e., dispersed subgroups settings to develop detailed design documentation for specified enhancements to a hypothetical university information system. Results indicated that the dispersed subgroups exhibited more within subgroup collective behaviors and engaged greater within subgroup information exchange as compared to fully collocated teams, where more teamwide collective behaviors and information exchange were observed. Furthermore, greater team collective behaviors gave rise to greater information exchange and activation among team members. Finally, information exchange and activation were associated positively with productivity and process satisfaction.

[1]  P. Paulus,et al.  Idea Generation in Groups : A Basis for Creativity in Organizations , 1994 .

[2]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  A Contingency Approach to Software Project Coordination , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[3]  Bradley L. Kirkman,et al.  The Impact of Team Empowerment on Virtual Team Performance: The Moderating Role of Face-to-Face Interaction , 2004 .

[4]  H. Tajfel,et al.  The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. , 2004 .

[5]  L. J. Williams,et al.  The cross-level operator in regression, ancova, and contextual analysis , 2000 .

[6]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  The (Currently) Unique Advantages of Collocated Work , 2002 .

[7]  Hayward P. Andres A comparison of face‐to‐face and virtual software development teams , 2002 .

[8]  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..

[9]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  CONFLICT AND SHARED IDENTITY IN GEOGRAPHICALLY DISTRIBUTED TEAMS , 2001 .

[10]  D. Armstrong,et al.  Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed work groups. , 2002 .

[11]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  Conversations Over Video Conferences: An Evaluation of the Spoken Aspects of Video-Mediated Communication , 1993, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[12]  Ian Sommerville,et al.  Software engineering (6th ed.) , 2001 .

[13]  S. Green,et al.  The effects of three social decision schemes on decision group process , 1980 .

[14]  C. Scott The impact of physical and discursive anonymity on group members’ multiple identifications during computer‐supported decision making , 1999 .

[15]  Jill M. Purdy,et al.  THE IMPACT OF COMMUNICATION MEDIA ON NEGOTIATION OUTCOMES , 2000 .

[16]  Joseph A. Bonito,et al.  The Effect of Contributing Substantively on Perceptions of Participation , 2000 .

[17]  Warren E. Watson,et al.  Team Orientation, Self-Orientation, and Diversity in Task Groups , 1998 .

[18]  H. Cheung,et al.  The Advanced Programmer's Reliance on Program Semantics: Evidence from some Cognitive Tasks , 1998 .

[19]  David W. Gerbing,et al.  A Comparison of Two Alternate Residual Goodness‑of‑Fit Indices , 1985 .

[20]  Shinobu Suzuki,et al.  In-Group and Out-Group Communication Patterns in International Organizations , 1998 .

[21]  Peter Mykytyn,et al.  Impact of heterogeneity and collaborative conflict management style on the performance of synchronous global virtual teams , 2004, Inf. Manag..

[22]  J. L. Garloch,et al.  Information Sharing in Face-to-Face, Teleconferencing, and Electronic Chat Groups , 1998 .

[23]  Richard T. Watson,et al.  Supporting virtual team-building with a GSS: an empirical investigation , 2003, Decis. Support Syst..

[24]  Chris W. Clegg,et al.  The dynamics of work organization, knowledge and technology during software development , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[25]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  A Typology of Virtual Teams , 2002 .

[26]  J. Elashoff,et al.  Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. , 1975 .

[27]  Terry Anthony Byrd,et al.  The Impact of IT Personnel Skills on IS Infrastructure and Competitive IS , 2004, Inf. Resour. Manag. J..

[28]  Julien Pollack,et al.  Developing a Basis for Global Reciprocity: Negotiating Between the Many Standards for Project Management , 2008, Int. J. IT Stand. Stand. Res..

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

[30]  Anit Somech,et al.  Understanding team innovation: The role of team processes and structures. , 2001 .

[31]  G. Kelley Selected Readings on Information Technology Management: Contemporary Issues , 2008 .

[32]  Victor R. Prybutok,et al.  Examining the Merits of Usefulness Versus Use in an Information Service Quality and Information System Success Web-Based Model , 2008, Inf. Resour. Manag. J..

[33]  Laku Chidambaram,et al.  How Much Bandwidth Is Enough? A Longitudinal Examination of Media Characteristics and Group Outcomes , 1999, MIS Q..

[34]  Gayle J. Yaverbaum,et al.  Asynchronous Computer-mediated Communication versus Face-to-face Collaboration: Results on Student Learning, Quality and Satisfaction , 1999 .

[35]  Charles Møller,et al.  Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology , 2005 .

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

[37]  Arun Rai,et al.  An Organizational Context for CASE Innovation , 1993 .

[38]  Joseph A. Bonito,et al.  An Information-Processing Approach to Participation in Small Groups , 2001, Commun. Res..

[39]  Antony Stephen Reid Manstead,et al.  Integrating Identity and Instrumental Approaches to Intergroup Differentiation: Different Contexts, Different Motives , 2002 .

[40]  Adrian Bangerter,et al.  Maintaining Interpersonal Continuity in Groups: The Role of Collective Memory Processes in Redistributing Information , 2002 .

[41]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Information Exchange and Use in Group Decision Making: You Can Lead a Group to Information, but You Can't Make It Think , 1996, MIS Q..

[42]  Peter Cappelli,et al.  Employee Involvement and Organizational Citizenship: Implications for Labor Law Reform and “Lean Production#x201D; , 1998 .

[43]  Youngjin Yoo,et al.  Media and Group Cohesion: Relative Influences on Social Presence, Task Participation, and Group Consensus , 2001, MIS Q..

[44]  E. Waters,et al.  How much observational data is enough? An empirical test using marital interaction coding. , 2001, Behavior therapy.

[45]  Anthony R. Hendrickson,et al.  Desktop video conferencing in virtual workgroups: anticipation, system evaluation and performance , 2001, Inf. Syst. J..

[46]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  --Understanding Effects of Proximity on Collaboration : Implications for Technologies to Support Remote Collaborative Work , 2001 .

[47]  Bernard C. Y. Tan,et al.  Group Polarization and Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Communication Cues, Social Presence, and Anonymity , 2002, Inf. Syst. Res..

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

[49]  John Hulland,et al.  Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies , 1999 .