Ingroup Dynamics and Perceived Effectiveness of Partially Distributed Teams

Research problem: Partially distributed teams (PDTs) are virtual teams that consist of at least two distinct geographically dispersed subgroups that communicate mainly through information and communication technology (ICT). As such teams become increasingly prevalent, it is important to understand how to manage them to maximize team effectiveness. The perceptions of effectiveness of PDTs may be significantly decreased when they are characterized by ingroup dynamics, consisting of preferential attitudes and actions toward collocated members, with accompanying conflict and lack of trust in regard to the distant subteam(s). Research questions: Do ingroup dynamics negatively impact perceptions of effectiveness in PDTs and, if so, how strongly? What factors can lessen ingroup dynamics-specifically, can training or reliable ICT support decrease ingroup dynamics? Does organizational context affect these relationships? Does whether or not the PDT is international affect these relationships? Does the number of subgroups in a PDT affect these relationships? Literature review: Social identity theory suggests how ingroup dynamics may emerge and create fault lines between subteams in a PDT. Effectiveness is defined in terms of process performance, which refers to how well the teamwork process has been undertaken. Prior research suggests that ICT reliability and training for work in distributed teams may decrease ingroup dynamics and improve effectiveness. International members, the specific organizational context, and the number of subteams per team might moderate these relationships. Methodology: An online survey of professionals with experience in PDTs was conducted, with two subsamples-one from a single large telecommunications company and one from a mix of organizations. Partial least squares regression was used to build and test a model of the relationships among the variables measured. Results: Ingroup dynamics have a strong negative relationship with perceived effectiveness. Overall, technology reliability and training significantly reduce ingroup dynamics. In the telecommunications company, training increased ingroup dynamics; thus, training may not always be beneficial, depending on organizational culture and the modes and types of training provided by a specific organization. Neither international membership on the team nor the number of subgroups per team was a significant multigroup moderator on any path in our model. Conclusions: These results help to extend social identity theory into this domain as they elucidate specifically that ICT reliability and training promote effectiveness of PDTs and that ingroup dynamics affect the perceptions of effectiveness in such teams. The results give managers guidance on what issues of PDTs to focus on to promote the effectiveness of PDTs.

[1]  Jeffrey T. Polzer,et al.  Extending the Faultline Model to Geographically Dispersed Teams: How Colocated Subgroups can Impair Group Functioning , 2006 .

[2]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  VIRTUAL TEAMS: ANTICIPATING THE IMPACT OF VIRTUALITY ON TEAM PROCESS AND PERFORMANCE. , 2000 .

[3]  Leila T. Worth,et al.  Processing of persuasive in-group messages. , 1990, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[4]  J. Turner,et al.  The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence , 1986 .

[5]  Jonathon N. Cummings Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[6]  Richard Reilly,et al.  The Role of Virtual Distance in Innovation and Success , 2006, Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06).

[7]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Training Students to Work Effectively in Partially Distributed Teams , 2009, TOCE.

[8]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Leadership Dynamics in Partially Distributed Teams: an Exploratory Study of the Effects of Configuration and Distance , 2011 .

[9]  Benson Rosen,et al.  Training for virtual teams: An investigation of current practices and future needs , 2006 .

[10]  Choon-Ling Sia,et al.  To trust or to distrust, that is the question: investigating the trust-distrust paradox , 2009, CACM.

[11]  Suprateek Sarker,et al.  Information systems development by US-Norwegian virtual teams: implications of time and space , 2002, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[12]  Jennifer M Talarico,et al.  A review of 40 years of research , 2018 .

[13]  Anne P. Massey,et al.  Getting It Together: Temporal Coordination and Conflict Management in Global Virtual Teams , 2001 .

[14]  B. Rosen,et al.  Overcoming Barriers to Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Teams , 2007 .

[15]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory: , 1982 .

[16]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  In-Group (Us) versus Out-Group (Them) Dynamics and Effectiveness in Partially Distributed Teams , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[17]  J. Alberto Espinosa,et al.  The impact of time separation on coordination in global software teams: a conceptual foundation , 2003, Softw. Process. Improv. Pract..

[18]  Pankaj C. Patel,et al.  Group Faultlines , 2012 .

[19]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  An Assessment of Group Support Systems Experimental Research: Methodology and Results , 1998, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[20]  J. Long Confirmatory Factor Analysis , 1983 .

[21]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory , 1982 .

[22]  N.W. Coppola,et al.  Building trust in virtual teams , 2001, IPCC 2001. Communication Dimensions. Proceedings IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (Cat. No.01CH37271).

[23]  Xiaogang Chen,et al.  Virtual organizational learning in open source software development projects , 2009, Inf. Manag..

[24]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 1999 .

[25]  William Lewis,et al.  Does PLS Have Advantages for Small Sample Size or Non-Normal Data? , 2012, MIS Q..

[26]  Mark Mortensen,et al.  Go (Con)Figure: Subgroups, Imbalance, and Isolates in Geographically Dispersed Teams , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[27]  J. Turner Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. , 2010 .

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

[29]  Karen A. Jehn,et al.  Do Workgroup Faultlines Help or Hurt? A Moderated Model of Faultlines, Team Identification, and Group Performance , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[30]  Annette R. Flippen Understanding Groupthink from a Self-Regulatory Perspective , 1999 .

[31]  William H. DeLone,et al.  Global boundaries, task processes and IS project success: a field study , 2006, Inf. Technol. People.

[32]  J. K. Murnighan,et al.  Interactions Within Groups and Subgroups: The Effects of Demographic Faultlines , 2005 .

[33]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  An Embedded Model of Cultural Adaptation in Global Teams , 2014, Organ. Sci..

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

[35]  Rick H. Hoyle,et al.  Confirmatory Factor Analysis , 1983 .

[36]  David J. Pauleen,et al.  An Inductively Derived Model of Leader-Initiated Relationship Building with Virtual Team Members , 2003, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[37]  Paul Benjamin Lowry,et al.  Partial Least Squares (PLS) Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) for Building and Testing Behavioral Causal Theory: When to Choose It and How to Use It , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[38]  G. Vozikis,et al.  Trust in Virtual Teams : The Use of a Directive Sentence in the Script of the Thinklet , 2002 .

[39]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Risks and risk mitigation in global software development: A tertiary study , 2014, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[40]  Bradley L. Kirkman,et al.  The Dimensions and Antecedents of Team Virtuality , 2005 .

[41]  Elizabeth A. McGlynn,et al.  Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation. , 2000 .

[42]  Paula R. Kaiser,et al.  Student Team Projects by Internet , 2000 .

[43]  Abbie Griffin,et al.  Managing communication in global product development teams , 1999 .

[44]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Trust in Partially Distributed Teams , 2009, ICIS.

[45]  N. Ashkanasy,et al.  Communicating trustworthiness and building trust in interorganizational virtual organizations , 2001 .

[46]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Putting the Global in Global Work: An Intercultural Lens on the Practice of Cross-National Collaboration , 2011 .

[47]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Impacts of Asynchronous Learning Networks on Individual and Group Problem Solving: A Field Experiment , 1999 .

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

[49]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Who collaborates successfully?: prior experience reduces collaboration barriers in distributed interdisciplinary research , 2008, CSCW.

[50]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  Process and technology challenges in swift-starting virtual teams , 2007, Inf. Manag..

[51]  Jason Bennett Thatcher,et al.  Internet anxiety: An empirical study of the effects of personality, beliefs, and social support , 2007, Inf. Manag..

[52]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Enacting language games: the development of a sense of ‘we‐ness’ in online forums , 2009, Inf. Syst. J..

[53]  Ojelanki K. Ngwenyama,et al.  Technology Alignment: A New Area in Virtual Team Research , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[54]  Jonathan Pool,et al.  Coalition formation in small groups with incomplete communication networks. , 1976 .

[55]  Peter Weimann,et al.  Enhancing Team Performance Through Tool Use: How Critical Technology-Related Issues Influence the Performance of Virtual Project Teams , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[56]  J. K. Murnighan,et al.  Demographic Diversity and Faultlines: The Compositional DYnamics of Organizational Groups , 1998 .

[57]  G. Vozikis,et al.  Trust in Virtual Teams , 2004 .

[58]  Marjorie Rush Hovde,et al.  Factors That Enable and Challenge International Engineering Communication: A Case Study of a United States/British Design Team , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[59]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  SUBGROUP DYNAMICS IN INTERNATIONALLY DISTRIBUTED TEAMS: ETHNOCENTRISM OR CROSS-NATIONAL LEARNING? , 2004 .

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

[61]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Emergence of Differing Electronic Communication Norms within Partially Distributed Teams , 2013 .

[62]  N. Sadat Shami,et al.  In-group/out-group effects in distributed teams: an experimental simulation , 2004, CSCW.

[63]  Anne P. Massey,et al.  Getting It Together: Temporal Coordination and Conflict Management in Global Virtual Teams , 2001 .

[64]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  Multigroup Analysis in Partial Least Squares (PLS) Path Modeling: Alternative Methods and Empirical Results , 2011 .

[65]  Bernard C. Y. Tan,et al.  A dialogue technique to enhance electronic communication in virtual teams , 2000 .

[66]  Shyh-Rong Fang,et al.  ANTECEDENTS AND DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN ONLINE TRUST AND DISTRUST: PREDICTING HIGH- AND LOW-RISK INTERNET BEHAVIORS , 2013 .

[67]  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.

[68]  Mark Mortensen,et al.  Extending Construal-Level Theory to Distributed Groups: Understanding the Effects of Virtuality , 2013, Organ. Sci..

[69]  Edward E. Rigdon,et al.  Rethinking Partial Least Squares Path Modeling: In Praise of Simple Methods , 2012 .

[70]  Gholam Ali Shaykhian,et al.  Factors affecting virtual team performance in telecommunication support environment , 2014, Telematics Informatics.

[71]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  Perceived discontinuities and constructed continuities in virtual work , 2011, Inf. Syst. J..