Virtual Teams and Multiple Media: Structuring Media Use to Attain Strategic Goals

Work environments have grown substantially more complex over the years. Teams are increasingly distributed, and presented with a variety of different communication technologies, e.g., e-mail, instant messaging, cellular phones, pagers, and intranet applications, for use in distributed collaborative activities. Further, individuals often belong to multiple teams concurrently. This study explores how virtual team members structure their use of multiple media to attain strategic goals in complex work environments. A grounded theory approach was used to analyze data gathered from forty interviews of information technology workers. Our results indicate that there are two primary structures individuals employ when making use of multiple media: sequential and concurrent. Sequential combinations are of three types: redundant, serial, or complementary, while concurrent combinations are of two types: independent or complementary. Further, individuals strategically use multiple media to accomplish specific communication goals beyond simply transmitting the message, such as message acknowledgement, enhancement of mutual understanding, and participation in multiple communication interactions. The implications of these findings for research and practice are discussed.

[1]  A. Luong,et al.  Meetings and More Meetings: The Relationship Between Meeting Load and the Daily Well-Being of Employees. , 2005 .

[2]  Timothy E. Loch Bridging Space over Time , 2007 .

[3]  Janet Fulk,et al.  Organizations and Communication Technology , 1990 .

[4]  Jean Hartley,et al.  Case study research , 2004 .

[5]  R. Yin Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[6]  Bonnie A. Nardi and Steve Whittaker The Place of Face-to-Face Communication in Distributed Work , 2002 .

[7]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Learning from Notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation , 1992, CSCW '92.

[8]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. , 1992 .

[9]  J. Alberto Espinosa,et al.  Team Boundary Issues Across Multiple Global Firms , 2003, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Daniel Robey,et al.  Implementation and the Organizational Impacts of Information Systems , 1987 .

[11]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[12]  ButlerBrian,et al.  Coordination and Virtualization , 1999 .

[13]  A. P. Chan,et al.  Coordination and Virtualization: the Role of Electronic Networks and Personal Relationships , 1999 .

[14]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[15]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

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

[17]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  The Effects of Interruptions, Task Complexity, and Information Presentation on Computer-Supported Decision-Making Performance , 2003, Decis. Sci..

[18]  Mary-Beth France Watson-Manheim,et al.  Support for Communication-Based Work Processes in Virtual Work , 2002 .

[19]  R. Kraut,et al.  Varieties of Social Influence: the Role of Utility and Norms in the Success of a New Communication Medium , 1998 .

[20]  Jack William Jones,et al.  Temporal Sequences in Information Acquisition for Decision Making: A Focus on Source and Medium , 1990 .

[21]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[22]  John E. Sawyer,et al.  Virtualness and Knowledge in Teams: Managing the Love Triangle of Organizations, Individuals, and Information Technology , 2003, MIS Q..

[23]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  What's your strategy for managing knowledge? , 1999, Harvard business review.

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

[25]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing , 2002, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[26]  Carol Stoak Saunders,et al.  The Social Construction of Meaning: An Alternative Perspective on Information Sharing , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[27]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  Discontinuities and continuities: a new way to understand virtual work , 2002, Inf. Technol. People.

[28]  Janet Fulk,et al.  Social construction of communication technology , 1993 .

[29]  James D. Hollan,et al.  Beyond being there , 1992, CHI.

[30]  Rosann Webb Collins,et al.  Technology Requirements and Work Group Communication for Telecommuters , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[31]  D. Straub,et al.  Knowledge Worker Communications and Recipient Availability: Toward a Task Closure Explanation of Media Choice , 1998 .

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

[33]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Fuzzy Teams: Boundary Disagreement in Distributed and Collocated Teams , 2002 .

[34]  Raymond R. Panko,et al.  Managerial Communication Patterns , 1992 .

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

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

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

[38]  Mei Lu,et al.  How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization , 2005, Inf. Syst. J..

[39]  Bonnie A. Nardi,et al.  Interaction and outeraction: instant messaging in action , 2000, CSCW '00.

[40]  G. DeSanctis,et al.  Electronic Communication and Changing Organizational Forms , 1995 .