When timeliness matters: the effect of status on reactions to perceived time delay within distributed collaboration.

This research examines the interactive effects of status and perceived time delay on acceptance of partner knowledge contributions within a distributive collaboration work environment. Results across 2 studies suggest that within distributed collaboration, time delays attributed to low-status partners had a significantly more harmful effect on influence acceptance than time delay attributed to high-status partners. This was so, despite the fact that partners' actual behavior was held constant across experimental conditions. In addition, results indicate that judgments of partner competence significantly mediated the interactive effects of perceived time delay and partner status on acceptance of partner influence.

[1]  M. D. Pugh,et al.  Sex, nonconformity and influence. , 1974, Sociometry.

[2]  B. Weiner.  An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. , 1985, Psychological review.

[3]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Distributed Work , 2002 .

[4]  Jerold L. Hale,et al.  Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors , 1988 .

[5]  D. Tjosvold,et al.  Productive organizational collaboration: The role of values and cooperation , 1989 .

[6]  Gwen M. Wittenbaum,et al.  The Bias Toward Discussing Shared Information , 2000, Commun. Res..

[7]  James D. Westphal.  Collaboration in the Boardroom: Behavioral and Performance Consequences of CEO-Board Social Ties , 1999 .

[8]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Three field experiments on the effects of violations of conversational distance , 1982 .

[9]  L. Jussim.  Social Reality and Social Problems: The Role of Expectancies , 1990 .

[10]  Katherine W. Phillips,et al.  When What You Know Is Not Enough: Expertise and Gender Dynamics in Task Groups , 2004, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[11]  Paul E. Spector.  ORGANIZATIONAL FRUSTRATION: A MODEL AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE , 1978 .

[12]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .

[13]  Youngme Moon,et al.  The effects of physical distance and response latency on persuasion in computer-mediated communication and human–computer communication. , 1999 .

[14]  G. M. Wittenbaum,et al.  Mutual enhancement: Toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information , 1999 .

[15]  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.

[16]  Joseph Berger,et al.  Status Characteristics and Social Interaction , 1972 .

[17]  R. Baron.  Invasions of personal space and helping: Mediating effects of invader's apparent need ☆ , 1978 .

[18]  C. Cramton.  Attribution in distributed work groups. , 2002 .

[19]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[20]  E. Salas,et al.  Task Cues, Dominance Cues, and Influence in Task Groups , 1993 .

[21]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Communicative effects of gaze behavior: a test of two contrasting explanations , 1986 .

[22]  C. Cramton.  The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration , 2001 .

[23]  Joseph Berger,et al.  STATUS ORGANIZING PROCESSES , 1980 .

[24]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Effects of preinteraction expectancies and target communication on perceiver reciprocity and compensation in dyadic interaction , 1995 .

[25]  M. Zanna,et al.  Attitudes and Attitude Change , 1993 .

[26]  A Amsel,et al.  Frustration theory--many years later. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[27]  C. Ridgeway,et al.  Nonconformity, Competence, and Influence in Groups: A Test of Two Theories , 1981 .

[28]  Gwen M. Wittenbaum,et al.  Information Sampling in Decision-Making Groups , 1998 .

[29]  Tanya Menon,et al.  THE MESSENGER BIAS: A RELATIONAL MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE VALUATION , 2003 .

[30]  Gregory A. Janicik,et al.  Getting and staying in-pace: the “in-synch” preference and its implications for work groups , 2002 .

[31]  R. Z. Norman,et al.  Status Characteristics and Social Interaction. , 1978 .

[32]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Models of reactions to changes in nonverbal immediacy , 1984 .

[33]  J. Burgoon.  A Communication Model of Personal Space Violations: Explication and an Initial Test. , 1978 .

[34]  D. Tjosvold.  Cooperative and Competitive Interdependence , 1988 .

[35]  E P HOLLANDER,et al.  Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. , 1958, Psychological review.

[36]  C. Cramton.  Finding common ground in dispersed collaboration. , 2002 .

[37]  Sally Blount,et al.  When Plans Change: Examining How People Evaluate Timing Changes in Work Organizations , 2001 .