Evaluating the Effects of Team Composition and Performance Environment on Team Performance

Performance, interpersonal relations, equity, and output are examined for both online and face to face team structures. As organizations make wider use of online teams to transcend geographical boundaries and maintain tight cost controls, the question remains whether these innovations are as or more effective than traditional face-to-face group structures. Hypothesized relationships are tested that include the evaluation of the team performance in online groups contrasted to face to face groups; group performance is hypothesized to be higher where membership in the group is self-selected as opposed to assigned group membership; group performance is hypothesized to be highest where its membership is self-selected and face to face. Interaction effects are tested within these hypothesized relationships. Suggestions are made that face to face groups, while a more costly alternative, may have higher levels of performance than online groups over the longer-term. Areas for future research are identified.

[1]  Chad Hilton,et al.  E-Mail and the Internet as International Business Communication Teaching and Research Tools—A Case Study , 1999 .

[2]  Joan C. Tonn,et al.  Team Building in an MBA “Gateway” Course: Lessons Learned , 2002 .

[3]  M. Bolton,et al.  The Role Of Coaching in Student Teams: A “Just-in-Time” Approach To Learning , 1999 .

[4]  S. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Will the Internet revolutionize business education and research? Sloan Management Review , 1996 .

[5]  Bryan Gladstone,et al.  Extending the group: a strategy for virtual team formation , 2000 .

[6]  Richard E. Potter,et al.  Virtual team interaction: assessment, consequences, and management , 2000 .

[7]  Deborah R. Ettington,et al.  Facilitating Transfer of Skills between Group Projects and Work Teams , 2002 .

[8]  C. Gersick.  Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development , 1988 .

[9]  Benson Rosen,et al.  Virtual team effectiveness: a proposed research agenda , 1999, Inf. Syst. J..

[10]  D. C. Feldman,et al.  The Development and Enforcement of Group Norms , 1984 .

[11]  Peter Naudé,et al.  Technology and virtual teams: using globally distributed groups in MBA learning , 1998 .

[12]  Paul Miesing.  Using electronic networks in management and executive learning , 1998 .

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

[14]  Deborah G. Ancona,et al.  Managing for the Future: Organizational Behavior and Processes , 1998 .

[15]  J. Shepperd.  Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. , 1993 .

[16]  L. R. Smith,et al.  Audiology: Teamwork Revisited: Are You Ready for Virtual Teams? , 2003 .

[17]  Terry L. Wiedmer.  Digital Portfolios: Capturing and Demonstrating Skills and Levels of Performance. , 1998 .

[18]  Vincent Tinto,et al.  Taking Retention Seriously: Rethinking the First Year of College , 1999 .

[19]  Thomas W. Treadwell,et al.  Collaborative Teaching over the Internet , 1998 .

[20]  James W. Botkin,et al.  The coming of knowledge-based business , 1999 .

[21]  James Ratcliff.  Assessment and Curriculum Reform , 1993 .

[22]  Kim A. Stewart,et al.  Lessons from the Best and Worst Student Team Experiences: How a Teacher can make the Difference , 1999 .

[23]  Sharon Farago Cramer.  Assessing effectiveness in the collaborative classroom , 1994 .

[24]  Srninivasan Ragothaman,et al.  Integrating the Internet and the World Wide Web into the Business Classroom: A Synthesis , 1997 .

[25]  Robert Johansen,et al.  Globalwork : bridging distance, culture, and time , 1994 .