How team feedback and team trust influence information processing and learning in virtual teams: A moderated mediation model

We study how team feedback influences information processing and learning in virtual teams.Group information is positively related to team learning in virtual teams.The indirect effect of team feedback on team learning via group information elaboration is moderated by team trust. This study examines a moderated mediation model in which team trust moderates the indirect effect of team feedback on team learning through group information elaboration in virtual teams. An experimental study in a laboratory was conducted with 54 teams randomly assigned to a team feedback condition or a control condition. Results provided empirical support to the moderated mediation model. We found that the indirect effect of team feedback on team learning via group information elaboration occurred in virtual teams with a high level of team trust. However, this indirect effect was not statistically significant in virtual teams with lower levels of team trust. Additionally, we also found that group information elaboration and team learning were positively related in virtual teams. Therefore, our findings suggest that team feedback is effective to improve group information elaboration and learning in virtual teams when team trust is high.

[1]  Gijsbert Erkens,et al.  Mediating team effectiveness in the context of collaborative learning: The importance of team and task awareness , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[2]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Testing a Typology of Tasks , 1999 .

[3]  F. Anseel,et al.  Reflection as a strategy to enhance task performance after feedback , 2009 .

[4]  Blake M. McKimmie,et al.  Deviance in organizational group decision-making: The role of information processing, confidence, and elaboration , 2012 .

[5]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[6]  M. Bauer.  Exchange And Power In Social Life , 2016 .

[7]  Xi Zhang,et al.  The impact of second life on team learning outcomes from the perspective of it capabilities , 2012 .

[8]  Dawn R. Deeter-Schmelz,et al.  An investigation of team information processing in service teams: Exploring the link between teams and customers , 2003 .

[9]  Blake Ives,et al.  Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research , 2004, DATB.

[10]  Kurt Kraiger,et al.  Perspectives on Training and Development , 2003 .

[11]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Invoking Social Comparison to Improve Electronic Brainstorming: Beyond Anonymity , 1995, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[12]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[13]  Rob Koper,et al.  Fostering trust in virtual project teams: Towards a design framework grounded in a TrustWorthiness ANtecedents (TWAN) schema , 2010, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[14]  Ramón Rico,et al.  Team Learning and Effectiveness in Virtual Project Teams: The Role of Beliefs about Interpersonal Context , 2010, The Spanish journal of psychology.

[15]  James M. Laffey,et al.  Web-Based Template-Driven Communication Support Systems: Using Shadow netWorkspace to Support Trust Development in Virtual Teams , 2007, Int. J. e Collab..

[16]  C. D. De Dreu,et al.  Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[17]  Michael J. Burke,et al.  Estimating Interrater Agreement with the Average Deviation Index: A User’s Guide , 2002 .

[18]  Peggy M. Beranek,et al.  Making virtual teams more effective: improving relational links , 2005 .

[19]  Xi Zhang,et al.  Understanding the users' continuous adoption of 3D social virtual world in China: A comparative case study , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[20]  R. Tindale,et al.  Team Reflexivity, Development of Shared Task Representations, and the Use of Distributed Information in Group Decision Making , 2009 .

[21]  Chieh-Peng Lin.  Modeling job effectiveness and its antecedents from a social capital perspective: A survey of virtual teams within business organizations , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[22]  Michael J. Burke,et al.  On Average Deviation Indices for Estimating Interrater Agreement , 1999 .

[23]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust , 1995 .

[24]  David Gefen,et al.  Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities , 2002, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[25]  Catherine Durnell Cramton,et al.  Relationships among geographic dispersion, team processes, and effectiveness in software development work teams , 2005 .

[26]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[27]  A. Hayes.  Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach , 2013 .

[28]  B. Baltes,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication and Group Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis , 2002 .

[29]  Susanne Geister,et al.  Effects of Process Feedback on Motivation, Satisfaction, and Performance in Virtual Teams , 2006 .

[30]  Guido Hertel,et al.  Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research , 2005 .

[31]  D. Knippenberg,et al.  Group information elaboration and group decision making: The role of shared task representations , 2008 .

[32]  Yu-Fang Hsu,et al.  Perceived job effectiveness in coopetition: A survey of virtual teams within business organizations , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[33]  Sarah MacCurtain,et al.  Understanding the Dynamics of Collective Learning: The Role of Trust and Social Capital , 2008 .

[34]  A. Edmondson.  Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams , 1999 .

[35]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Dual-process theories in social psychology , 1999 .

[36]  Merrill Warkentin,et al.  Training to improve virtual team communication , 1999, Inf. Syst. J..

[37]  S. West,et al.  A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. , 2002, Psychological methods.

[38]  J. McGrath,et al.  Groups Interacting with Technology: Ideas, Evidence, Issues and an Agenda , 1993 .

[39]  Verlin B. Hinsz,et al.  The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. , 1997, Psychological bulletin.

[40]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Is Anybody Out There? Antecedents of Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 1998, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[41]  A. Hayes.  Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium , 2009 .

[42]  M. D. Dunnette.  Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 2005 .

[43]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  All in due time: The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams , 2006 .

[44]  S. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Swift trust in global virtual teams: Trusting beliefs and normative actions. , 2013 .

[45]  Ana Belén Martínez Prieto,et al.  Interactive web environment for collaborative and extensible diagram based learning , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[46]  M. Porter.  Towards a dynamic theory of strategy , 1991 .

[47]  M. West.  Reflexivity and work group effectiveness:a conceptual integration , 1996 .

[48]  D. Sandy Staples,et al.  Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams , 2008, Inf. Syst. J..

[49]  P. Christopher Earley,et al.  IMPACT OF PROCESS AND OUTCOME FEEDBACK ON THE RELATION OF GOAL SETTING TO TASK PERFORMANCE , 1990 .

[50]  D. Chan.  Functional Relations among Constructs in the Same Content Domain at Different Levels of Analysis: A Typology of Composition Models , 1998 .

[51]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.