DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE OF DISTRIBUTED TEAMS: EXAMINING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ASYNCHRONOUS AND SYNCHRONOUS COMMUNICATION IN PLANNING TASK EXECUTION by Teresa M. Bennett BRUCE GILLIES, Psy.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair SARA JARVIS, Ph.D., Committee Member THOMAS VAIL, Ph.D., Committee Member Deborah Bushway, Ph.D., Dean, Harold Abel School of Psychology A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Capella University July 2009
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE OF DISTRIBUTED TEAMS:
EXAMINING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ASYNCHRONOUS AND SYNCHRONOUS
COMMUNICATION IN PLANNING TASK EXECUTION
by
Teresa M. Bennett
BRUCE GILLIES, Psy.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair
SARA JARVIS, Ph.D., Committee Member
THOMAS VAIL, Ph.D., Committee Member
Deborah Bushway, Ph.D., Dean, Harold Abel School of Psychology
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
July 2009
UMI Number: 3366091
Copyright 2009 by Bennett, Teresa M.
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
mediated teams take longer to develop interpersonal relationships, therefore, it is
recommended that when forming a distributed team, it is advantageous to make their
initial meeting face-to-face to facilitate team development (Irmer, Chang & Bordia,
2000). The hypothesis advocated in this study used synchronous communication media
instead of face-to-face interaction but still looked to synchronous communication to show
some advantages to the team once they changed to asynchronous communication
methods.
However, with no differences in team development between tasks, there are two
separate conclusions. Either teams do not need “rich” or synchronous meeting to show
satisfaction with their development or there was not sufficient time to see an impact of
the synchronous interactions. There have been some weaknesses noted in Media
Richness Theory. Media Richness Theory, as described in the literature, points to the
information needs of the task to be performed to be in line with the media chosen.
According to DeLuca and Valacich (2006), Media Richness Theory does not consider the
communication processes within tasks themselves. With results of team success using
asynchronous communications, members are believed to be modifying their behaviors
and expectations to work with each other regardless of the degree of social presence
(DeLuca & Valacich, 2006).
Teams do need to time to develop. Frequency and length of synchronous interaction
promotes more familiarity and cooperation (Hinds & Bailey, 2003). In addition,
experience in working within a team environment is also a consideration. People
experienced with working in teams may be satisfied with team development issues
82
regardless of communication method (Hamilyn-Harris, Hurst, von Baggo, & Bayley,
2006).
There other considerations when examining such results of team members moving
from a synchronous to asynchronous environment. In applying Media Naturalness
Theory, one would expect that there be a significant difference for members in such a
situation. Moving from a visual media to text-based chat in planning, the team members
are later exposed to a medium which has a lower-rated ability in terms of carrying
information. Using Newberry’s (2001) matrix, text-based chat scores on the low side of
the matrix in terms of its ability to provide feedback cues, to allow messages to be
created or changed specifically for a recipient, and to transmit feelings or emotions.
However, as generations of workers become more exposed to technologies incorporating
text-based chat, perhaps there is less impact than originally believed.
Researchers must consider a person’s “media competence” when studying computer-
mediated groups. Media competence is considered not only from the perspective of the
technology having flaws or limitations, but from a user perspective in terms of exposure
and training (Jonas et al., 2002). Technology self-efficacy is also viewed as inhibiting an
individual’s use and performance in a computer-mediated environment (Brown, Fuller, &
Vician, 2004). However, as generations become more exposed to communication
technologies and use various technologies on a more frequent basis, the competence and
efficacy of team members is increased.
In addition, text-based chat alone has become a more “fluid” communication tool
with the increased number of individuals “texting” frequently as a preferred mode of
communication. With asynchronous communication involving more personalized and
83
emotional characteristics, perhaps moving from a synchronous to asynchronous
communication method in a team environment is not as detrimental to team development
and performance as such theories would propose. Team members must be comfortable
moving from media to media. As exposure to different types of communication media
are increased, individual team members must become less sensitive to changing situations
in order to have positive effects on performance (Belanger & Watson-Manheim, 2006).
These sensitivities seem to declining as more generations are exposed to technologies at a
young age.
There were significant differences in performance for the teams between Task 1 and
Task 2. Significant difference in both execution time and height were found. The teams
took longer to plan for Task 1 (planning synchronous) as compared for Task 2 (planning
asynchronous). In addition, the height of the structure developed for Task 2 (planning
asynchronous) was taller than for Task 1 (planning synchronous). The results for these
hypotheses are generally similar to the previous set of hypotheses which examined the
opposite situation (teams moving from asynchronous to synchronous). When team
members were brought together to plan the assembly of the Tall Ships™, they were given
specific instructions for the task and provided a detailed list of parts along with example
pieces. Due to the amount of direction and clarity given to the teams for planning the
tasks, it is understandable that there were no large differences found between teams
regardless of distributed communications that were used. Hinds and Bailey (2003)
describe “preventative measures” to help diminish the possible negative effects of
distributed communication which include purposeful conveyance of contextual
information and learning about the technology.
84
The teams in this study were provided a good framework to help them in the
planning process. With experience in using such technologies such as chat rooms and
videoconferencing, team members more than likely had confidence in using the
communication media presented to them. For teams in general, it is recommended that
organizations provide ample training in using any communication technologies. Teams
with higher levels of knowledge on the properties and functionalities of communication
technologies are more effective in using it and creating an environment for adequate
information transfer as well as coordination (Hinds & Bailey, 2003). Some researchers
indicate that computer-mediated technologies (either asynchronous or synchronous) are
“genres” which evolve over time and allow members to adapt their behavior to fit the
media (Berry, 2006).
Synchronous versus Face-to-Face Teams in Performance
The final hypothesis for this study examined differences between all teams,
regardless of communication method to plan, in terms of their performance in executing
Task 1 and Task 2 either using synchronous communications as opposed to traditional
face-to-face methods. It was hypothesized that there would be difference in performance.
While both communication methods (synchronous and face-to-face) involve social
presence of its members (in a visual capacity), synchronous communication is still
computer-mediated and should carry with it the same limitations as other computer-
mediated communication. In fact, task performance through video synchronous
communication has shown to include difficulties such as managing turn-taking, control of
the team through body position and eye gaze, motion awareness through peripheral
vision, awareness of side conversations, as well as manipulation of objects (Isaacs &
85
Tang, 1993). Videoconferencing has been criticized because of its limitations in video
and audio images with poor quality and delay in conveying communications (Simon,
2006). However, with technologies improving almost daily, it is worthy of continual
research and comparison to traditional communication methods.
In this study, the majority of performance variables showed no difference between
teams. There was only one significant difference found between synchronous and face-
to-face team performance, and this was seen in the cost calculation for Task 2. The cost
of the structure developed for Task 2 was significantly more for synchronous execution
teams as opposed to face-to-face teams. Cost, however, is a product of planning in terms
of the team deciding what to use in building the mast. The performance of the task is the
implementation of the plan. With no major differences found between the teams using
either method, team performance with the use of synchronous communication media
appears just as effective as face-to-face.
While past research has demonstrated significant difference between asynchronous
computer-mediated communications and face-to-face, these results do not always
automatically apply to synchronous communications. Teams that have video and audio
added to their communication methods show improved decision making when comparing
other computer-mediated technologies (Baker, 2002). Media Synchronicity Theory
would support these findings as it is proposed that communication media with higher
levels of synchronicity or interaction (high feedback, low parallelism) would yield greater
satisfaction and performance. Media Richness Theory would also support such results in
a similar manner. Yet, direct comparison of synchronous (video) computer-mediated
team performance to face-to-face team performance is rare.
86
Of the very limited research, it has been found that video conferencing
(synchronous) communications to be as effective as traditional face-to-face in building
trust and cohesion within a team (Bos et al., 2001; Chang, 2005; Jarvenpaa & Leidner,
1999). Studies examining other types of computer-mediated communications versus
face-to-face teams have typically found less cohesion or team commitment (Thatcher &
DeLaCour, 2003; Maruping & Agarwal, 2004; Biergiel et al., 2008). More synchronous
communication may prove to have less impact of low commitment and identity because
of its visual nature. Video conferencing is becoming more prevalent in team
performance, and the viewpoint that this type of communication method is less effective
is becoming more challenged (Liu et al., 2007).
However, the results of past studies found that it takes time to reach the level of face-
to-face teams in terms of team development. The results of Chang’s (2005) analysis
demonstrated that at least three times the amount of time was needed to develop the same
level of task and social cohesion as face-to-face teams. Other research has demonstrated
that video conferencing teams have lower levels of confidence in their decisions as
compared to face-to-face teams; however, there were no difference found in terms of
commitment to the group decision, accuracy, and number of beliefs discussed or learned
(Crede & Sniezek, 2003).
While some results, including the findings of this research study, may demonstrate
little differences between synchronous and face-to-face task performance, there are many
issues to explore prior to equating the two communication methods, particularly if one
method were to replace the other in terms of performing a task. Isaacs and Tang (1993)
would support that the real differences between synchronous (video) and face-to-face
87
team performance would be better visible when studying the processes of team member
interactions – i.e., in real work environments. In this study, teams may using
synchronous computer-mediated communication may have adapted to the limitations of
the technology by having one member control the building of the mast versus it being
more of a collaborative effort with team members being co-located (face-to-face).
The Task-Technology Fit theory is also applicable in this discussion as the theory
suggests that computer-mediated communication is optimized when the capabilities of
the media match the requirement of the task(s) (Kerr & Murthy, 2004). Therefore, task
complexity and level of support related to the technology is an important consideration.
This study involved a simple, straightforward task involving simple requirements for the
team to plan a strategy. The goal of the performance was to execute the plan developed.
With more complex and involved task requirements, which are present in real world
applications, the conclusions that the two methods (synchronous and face-to-face) are
equivalent, should not be assumed without deeper examination. In this research, teams
typically had one member building the mast according to plan while the others guided the
activity. If the task had required more communication in terms of dialogue between team
members, there are many considerations to take into account with the synchronous
(video) communication. For example, it is recommended that aspects of relative position
(actual viewpoints of each participant within the video conferencing), head orientation,
and gaze (position of looking within others’ facial region) be evaluated prior to
comparing this method of communication to face-to-face interactions (Vertegaal, 1999).
88
Limitations
There are a number of limitations and considerations for this study. The first aspect
of the analysis which relates to generalizability of the results involves the actual
technology used in examining synchronous and asynchronous teams. Today, there are
many options for teams to employ to facilitate computer-mediated communications.
These range from text, audio to visual media as well as considering the various
combinations amongst all three. In addition to the media, there are variations within
them in terms of real-time text (messaging) versus delayed email correspondence, video
capabilities in quality and resolution/responsiveness in a video feed, and others to
complicate the evaluation of teams and impacts upon their development and performance.
The technologies used in this study, including text (whiteboard) and video conferencing,
are just two variations. The results of this study may or may not be generalizable to other
computer-mediated communication team situations.
In addition to the type of media, the type of task and team are other important
limitations in terms of generalizing the results. The task for this study included both
planning and executing upon that plan to build the tallest mast with the materials given.
It is well understood and supported that different types of tasks require different types of
communication media, and thus, the results of this study may not be applicable to all
types of tasks teams perform (Thompson & Coovert, 2003).
The same is true for the type of team assembled. Teams can consist of members who
are from similar or dissimilar backgrounds, with varying amounts of experience both in a
team environment as well as with each other, and have different goals in terms of the
success of the team. For this study, students were employed who had little or no prior
89
experience in working with each other. As true for many studies that use a student
population to derive subjects, the limitations of prior interaction among team members is
always a consideration. The study design for this project, however, sought to minimize
the effect of prior experience by recruiting freshman students to participate in the
research. However, it must be understood that students have less experience in a team
environment as a whole (as compared to a team member within a large organization with
years of experience). The results of this study and their ability to be generalized to other
populations are impacted by the types of subjects used. With new teams shown to require
a different level of communication, there is the possibility that the results of this study
would have been different (Thompson & Coovert, 2003).
Another limitation in this study includes the demographics of the sample studied.
With students beings used, the average age of the sample population is between the ages
of 18 to 19 years of age. Results may not be generalizable to a larger population which
would include older and a wider age distribution of team members. This is also true
regarding gender. The distribution of the sample used in this study consisted primarily of
male students. The general population is more evenly distributed between genders.
Laboratory settings could be considered less ideal for examining the issue of
synchronous versus asynchronous communication for teams. Some feel there is a lack of
“ecological validity” with laboratory settings not truly capturing the longer relationships
and entrenchment team members have within an organization (Jonas et al., 2002). For
the target population for this research, however, it seemed ideal as military distributed
mission personnel operate in a less traditional organizational environment and often do
not have long relationships with others involved in a training exercise.
90
Finally, another limitation of this study is the actual duration of the task included in
the study design. It is known that teams that perform over time experience the impact of
task and technology at different levels (Driskell et al., 2003). Teams that spend larger
amount of time with each other (regardless of physical location) would be assumed to
have different results in terms of the use of various computer-mediated communication
methods and their development and performance. Tasks of “short duration” are
considered lasting 50-120 minutes, and it is believed that team members are really too
task-focused to promote any interpersonal relationships (Hamlynn-Harris et al., 2006).
Therefore, generalizing the results of this research to teams that interact on a longer basis
or over time would be a limitation.
Overall, there were very few problems in conduct of this study which would have
influenced the results. The video conferencing equipment was, at times, difficult to set
up and work optimally when the teams were in place. Some adjustments were made prior
to the team beginning the work; however, unforeseen difficulties sometimes occurred.
The timing of setting up the initial computer-mediated communication, moving to the
task performance, and then changing the computer-mediated communication method was
an important aspect of making the study successful. While there were some lags in
setting up the computer, overall, the process of moving the team members from planning
to task performance was overall uneventful and should have little to no impact on the
results shown.
Suggestions for Future Studies
The findings of this research study suggest a number of areas for future researchers
to pursue. Examining differences between computer-mediated teams whose interaction
91
involved either asynchronous or synchronous media, this study found little difference
between teams that had some level of social presence (synchronous or visual
communication) versus those that had no social presence (asynchronous communication).
In addition, little difference was found within teams using one method of communication
for the first task and another method of communication for the second task. These
findings hold true for both team development and performance.
However, this does not mean that differences in communication method are not
important to be studied by future research. With technologies changing constantly, there
must always be research on the forefront to examine their impact as well as ways to more
optimally use them for team development and performance. Distributed team
environments are becoming more of an integral part of organizations’ normal operations.
Effective communication is essential. Organizations must be able to fully understand the
implications of choosing one technology over another as well as the impact of mixing
technologies and the timing of their use. All too often, organizations may choose media
for the sake of cutting travel costs of members trying to meet geographically without full
knowledge of the implication in terms of team performance in using such technologies.
Communication media may also be considered equal on the surface by virtue of real-time
versus delayed communications, etc.
In depth examination of team performance should be included in future research.
Team performance is an essential element of team effectiveness. Referring back to the
RHR Team Effective Model presented by Winum & Seamons (2000), the connected
variables of team performance and interpersonal processes are important for the
assessment of team effectiveness.
92
In this research, teams worked together to plan and execute a simple task. The time
spent planning was, overall, not more than two minutes. There should be additional
research on the team performance, and development, of teams using different computer-
mediated technologies for teams interacting for a longer periods of time. In addition,
such research could provide more evidence of the impact of social presence. With
shorter duration team interactions, social presence may not have been established. Some
believe social presence should be considered on a multi-dimensional level which includes
many layers of perception beyond visual existence of another team member (Biocca &
Harms, 2002).
Additional research in computer-mediated team performance should also consider
cohesion. It has been supported that when cohesion is strong, a team is motivated to
perform well and is better able to coordinate activities towards successful performance
(Beal et al., 2003). Research shows that cohesion is the most studied predictor of team
performance (Sundstrom et al., 2000). This does not mean that their relationship is
clearly causally related. A positive relationship between cohesiveness and team
performance has been dependent upon such factors as size and dependence level among
group members (Brehm et al., 2005).
Performance has also shown to be related to certain types of teams, too. For
example, cohesion has been shown to be a predictor in project teams, but not service
teams (Sundstrom et al., 2000). However, application of some theories associated with
computer-mediated teams would question the importance or relevance of cohesion.
Some theories, such as media richness or social presence theories are seen to question the
ability for relationships to develop among team members (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999).
93
Despite such theories, research has shown that, while they take longer, computer-
mediated teams develop interpersonal relationships and factors associated with cohesion
(organizational commitment, satisfaction with goals, and group effectiveness (Irmer et
al., 2000). In terms of types of tasks to be performed, cohesiveness can be
disadvantageous for groups needing creative, innovative ideas (Brehm et al., 2005).
Research should examine distributed, computer-mediated further in order to more fully
develop an understanding of cohesiveness and its positive and negative effects in order to
help organizations make decisions to optimize team performance and select appropriate
use or method(s) of communication media.
There should be more examination of teams by different communication media.
Most research in the area of computer-mediated communications has between traditional
face-to-face and computer-mediated teams. There has been little research between teams
using various forms of computer-mediated technologies, which this study was focused.
Technologies are continually being developed and more rapidly than the research on
teams using them. In addition, organizations are increasingly using a different mix of
technologies within teams as they work together to complete tasks. This includes use of
different forms of both asynchronous and synchronous communications. While this
research did not support the advocacy of providing more socially present technology
prior to using less present technology, there should be more examination of different
mixes of technology in support of technology development as well as the issue of timing
the use of different technologies (either early or late in a team’s interaction). This
examination should also include a control of a purely face-to-face team across tasks as
compared to teams who change communication media between tasks. This would allow
94
a more direct comparison of traditional team processes along with emerging mixes of
technologies and their use over time.
Beyond the existence of social presence in communication media, this research did
not consider aspects of cognitive load. If the results of this research had demonstrated
higher team development and better performance using a mix of technologies (in
whatever order), then the application of technology mix should further research the
impact of multiple media including cognitive load. Technologies could provide a mix of
audio, visual, and text. These should be examined more deeply to see which technologies
help or hinder team development and performance. In research, it has been found that
adding interesting but irrelevant material to text passages actually reduces the amount of
relevant material that users remember (Mayer, Heiser, & Lonn, 2001). Looking at this
from a cognitive processing standpoint, it is imperative that extraneous material does not
compete with other resources.
Examining the type of team using computer-mediated communication would be
another area of future research. While this study focused on new team members working
together for the first time, introducing different communication media to teams who are
more experienced as a team may prove different results. In addition, experience level
with computer-mediated technologies is another factor to consider for future research.
Organizations face the challenge of having team members with various levels of
experience in using computer-mediated technologies. Members who are more
experienced may be able to adapt from one technology to another. This may not hold
true for everyone as less experienced members may be less effective members of the
95
team if use of the technology is challenging. These issues become prevalent as
technologies quickly develop and potentially become more complex or multi-faceted.
In terms of types of teams, cross-functional teams are increasingly being used by
organizations. A cross functional team is one whereby members come from different
organizational areas. There are a number of additional considerations when examining
these types of teams, for example in the area of personal interest. Each member will have
varying levels of interest in the team’s success. Each member has their own
organizational bias and goals/objectives for the team. With conflicting interests, similar
research such as conducted by this study should be conducted to examine the impact of
the team using different communication media as well as the timing of more socially
present media.
The area of leadership should be studied in terms of its impact on computer-mediated
teams. Team performance and development are influenced by having adequate
leadership in guiding the team through its tasks. A team using one or more different
communication technology, regardless of social presence or not, may benefit from the
type of leadership it receives. The question is whether leadership must adapt for different
technologies. Does socially present technology dictate a different leadership approach
than a less “present” technology (i.e., written text correspondence)?
With new technologies being introduced on a continual basis to teams, leadership is
considered to be the central component to channel and champion effective use of
technology (Berry, 2006). There are many areas where leadership can have an impact on
computer-mediated team development and performance. Leadership can provide the
feedback and common goals which are important for computer-mediated teams to have in
96
order to reduce task conflict. Virtual teams that develop a sense of shared identity
demonstrate lower levels of task conflict (Maruping & Agarwal, 2002). Researchers also
believe that greater conformity can be achieved in computer-mediated environments
when group standards are prominent and there is support for uninhibited expression
(Driskell et al., 2003).
One area of additional study should be whether more synchronous, socially present
media provide greater conformity as well as feelings of shared identity. Leadership style
has a direct impact on these as well. Future studies of computer mediated teams should
examine not only the variances in technology and its influence on team development and
performance, but also leadership approaches. Leaders play a major role in establishing
the team performance goals as well as ensuring tasks are completed in a timely and
effective manner. This is also true for distributed teams. It has been found that the more
a team relies on computer-mediated communications and less on face-to-face meetings,
the teams experience less empowerment which impacts team performance (Kirkman,
Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004). Research should assess whether leadership within a
distributed team can focus a team’s efforts and mediate consensus.
Conclusions
The research questions for this study were focused on the use of different computer-
mediated technologies and its impact on team development and performance. If teams
execute tasks using the same communication method, do they differ in performance if
they plan for a task using different technologies? Do teams that use technologies with
less social presence in planning have as much team development as those who plan with
technologies having more social presence? Is there any difference in team performance
97
between tasks for teams who have social presence in planning for one task but do not
have as much social presence in planning an additional task? With various
communication media available to use for planning, the research questions for this study
revolved around whether synchronous or asynchronous technologies led to higher team
development or performance. In addition, with synchronous technologies bringing in a
dimension of social presence, it was hypothesized that teams using more “socially
present” video conferencing would have higher team development and performance than
teams that planned using asynchronous communications.
Overall, the findings of this study did not support whether the introduction of
socially present (synchronous) communication led to higher team development or
performance, regardless if different teams were compared or the same team was
compared between tasks. The results of this research showed no significant differences
between different teams using either synchronous or asynchronous communications. The
overall implication of such results may prove that the introduction of social presence in
computer-mediated communication is not necessary for team development or
performance. Typical beliefs of researchers, such as Hinds and Bailey (2003) suggest
that more face-to-face meetings help to promote interpersonal relationships. With the use
of various forms of computer-mediated communication available today, perhaps face-to-
face interactions (periodic or initial) may not be as influential as originally believed.
However, these findings should lead to additional research associated with these
research questions in order to shed additional light into the findings as well as provide
deeper understanding of the implications of the absence or lack of absence of more
“socially present” media. Additional research is also warranted for such computer-
98
mediated teams as technologies are always changing and there are other variables to
consider when infusing new capabilities into the team environment. These include
different measures of team development, increasing the time teams interact, varying the
type of tasks teams perform, as well as infusion of leadership techniques within different
computer-mediated environments.
This study differed from previous research involving computer-mediated teams in
that it examined the differences of teams using different types of computer-mediated
communication media as opposed to comparing a computer-meditated team to a
traditional face-to-face team. Most research has only investigated a single type of
communication media relative to face-to-face interactions. This study sought to compare
different computer-mediated teams which varied by the level of social presence in terms
of planning and performing a task as well as comparing the same team in changing their
computer-mediated communication method for different tasks.
Studies comparing different types of computer mediated teams are important as
organizations often do not have a choice of whether or not to use computer-mediated
communication for task planning and performance. The results of such analyses will help
organizations in choosing the appropriate technology or mix of technologies.
A term being used in the world of computer-mediated communication is called
collaborative virtual environments. These environments are created using multiple
communication channels such as text, audio, video as well as external technologies as
shared software or multi-dimensional datasets (Scheck, et al, 2008). This study tried to
understand if teams interacting using one technology versus another for each task differed
in their development and performance. While there were no significant differences
99
found, there should be additional research into the impact of combining technologies and
the timing of their use. Introducing more visual communication media in the beginning
or sporadically throughout a team’s interaction is worthy of additional research. The
future of computer-mediated communications will involve use of more collaborative
systems taking advantage of multi-media capabilities. With the combinations of different
media ever changing, there is still limited knowledge as to how to combine media for
improved team development and task performance.
With such research, technologies such as group decision support systems can be
incorporated to further to assist computer-mediated teams in task performance. Such
systems are looked to as a very suitable technology option for managing task conflict
among computer-mediated teams (Maruping & Agarwal, 2002). These systems not only
provide a structure for communication by issues but allow members to become involved
in the team process via multiple means. Decision support systems have been developed
to be extremely dynamic allowing both text contributions as well as voting to occur by
members on a continuous basis (Turoff, Hiltz, Cho, Li, & Wang, 2002). Thresholds can
be set in discussions to where consensus can be determined if no new ideas of
information are presented. Members can then also accept or reject decisions and can
decide to continue discussions, if warranted.
As indicated by the literature review, computer-mediated teams are influenced by a
variety of factors. Theories developed around computer-mediated teams, in general,
focus on the choice of technology in terms of tasks and naturalness and do not fully
address the social dynamics of team development and performance. Social presence
theory, when applied to computer-mediated teams, is important to consider because it
100
addresses more of the internal process aspects of a team rather than focus on the
technology alone. Bringing in the dynamics of social psychology into the area of
computer-mediated teams is an important step to examining such teams more holistically.
With computer-mediated technologies often lacking social cues and also include a
lag or redundancy in responses, effective communication is important. Effective
communication is defined as reducing misunderstandings and is considered successful if
communication is coherent (Jonas et al., 2002). Efforts to improve the performance of
computer-mediated teams, then, can be focused on training members to better
communicate. Training can be provided to demonstrate how to create messages in a
manner that minimizes misinterpretations or misunderstandings (Franz, 1999).
Having clear and organized communication plans and work expectation systems are
seen as essential requirements for effective computer-mediated teams (Berry, 2006).
Computer-mediated teams have the ability through asynchronous media to carefully
review and reread information provided by other team members. Plans can be instituted
requiring some level of review and clarification of major discussion points. There must
be some process interventions in place to retrieve formerly overlooked information and
remind team members to consider otherwise ignored contributions (Thompson &
Coovert, 2002).
Feedback and common goals are also important for computer-mediated teams in
order to reduce task conflict. Virtual teams that developed a sense of shared identity
demonstrate lower levels of task conflict (Maruping & Agarwal, 2002). Researchers also
believe that, according to the social identity model of de-individuation, greater
101
conformity will be achieved in computer-mediated environments when group standards
are prominent and there is support for uninhibited expression (Driskell et al., 2003).
Building confidence and motivation are important for computer-mediated team
performance. Organizations should not withhold consideration for these factors just
because members are distributed. Continuous member support, through team
communications, as well as maintaining a team member’s sense of belonging in the
process are important ways to build motivation and confidence within the team
environment (Maruping & Agarwal, 2002). Organizations should also consider
individual’s differences in experience with computer-mediated technologies and their
expected anxieties in using new media. Incorporating a support structure for team
members as they move to computer-mediated environments is essential for the entire
team’s performance.
The study of computer-mediated communication will lead, in the long run, to the
development of tools for determining if this method is appropriate for a group to use. It
is advocated that three conditions are combined to influence the use of media in
computer-mediated teams: conventional understandings constructed by team members of
their workplace, technological aspects of the chosen media, and institutional support
which includes social structures within the organization (Berry, 2006). Organizations
more than likely understand the technological aspects better than the social ones relevant
to the team.
Summary
Organizations are continuing to learn the advantages of using geographically-
distributed teams in performing essential tasks. Organizations, such as the military, have
102
realized the benefits of such teams over the years and continue to use them in a wider
range of areas such as with aircrew distributed planning teams. A common dilemma
facing any organization is the choice and sequence of such media as the number of
technologies available increasingly grows and changes as possible methods of
communication for distributed teams.
Knowledge of the group dynamics and social variables involved with computer-
mediated teams is considered central to understanding their performance (Driskell et al.,
2003). It is obvious that organizations should not ignore social and psychological issues
and should focus on ways to improve team processes as they relate to their specific
performance needs. However, with communication technologies varying in their amount
of information richness, synchronicity, and social presence, organizations must
understand what, if any, impact these variances have on team development and
performance.
While the preference is to have some level of social presence or face-to-face
interaction, there are alternatives to be explored to develop social cohesion and
collaboration among distributed members. This study examined teams using different
methods of communication and whether more socially present technologies resulted in
higher team development or better performance. The results of this study found no
significant differences for teams who planned a task using synchronous versus
asynchronous communication, changed from synchronous to asynchronous
communication in planning, changed from asynchronous to synchronous communication
in planning, or performing a task using synchronous communication versus traditional
face-to-face interaction.
103
While no significant differences were found, the results have many implications.
Teams may not require as much socially present or synchronous interaction as believed.
However, this must be understood within the context of the type of task assigned and the
amount of time a team is allowed to interact. Additional research into the issues
associated with computer-mediated team performance should be conducted in order to
gain optimal performance and development from distributed teams and develop
appropriate interventions designed to address computer-mediated team deficiencies as
well as provide a means to capitalize on their inherent benefits (Thompson & Coovert,
2002).
As the RHR model illustrates, interpersonal processes are important contributors to
the development and performance of a team, regardless of the geographic location of its
members as well as the choices in communication media. Organizations such as the
military that rely on distributed teams to perform critical functions are in need of research
to guide the selection and incorporation of communication media. Regardless of the
types of technologies used, the core theories which infuse aspects of social psychology
remain relevant to the development and performance of teams. It is imperative that
researchers continue to examine the role of computer-mediated technologies and its
impact on team members as they work together to accomplish their goals and objectives.
Technologies should not be incorporated into a team environment for the sake of using
the latest and greatest technologies available. Remaining focused on the team in terms of
both its development and performance should be forefront.
104
REFERENCES
Baker, G. (2002). The effects of synchronous collaborative technologies on decision making: A study of virtual teams. Information Resources Management Journal, 15, 79-93.
Barkhi, R., Jacob, V.S., & Pirkul, H. (1999). An experimental analysis of face to face
versus computer mediated communication channels. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8, 325-347.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Neubert, M. J. (1998). Relating member ability and
personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377-391.
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and
performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989-1004.
Belanger, F. & Watson-Manheim, M. (2006). Virtual teams and multiple media:
Structuring media use to attain strategic goals. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 299-321.
Bergiel, B. J., Bergiel, E. B., & Balsmeier, P. W. (2008). Nature of virtual teams: A
summary of their advantages and disadvantages. Management Research News, 31, 99-110.
Berry, G. R. (2006). Can computer-mediated asynchronous communication improve
team processes and decision making? Journal of Business Communication, 43, 344-366.
Biocca, F. & Harms, C. (2002). Defining and measuring social presence: Contribution to
the networked minds theory and measure. Retrieved January 11, 2009 from http://www.temple.edu\ispr\prev.conferences\proceedings\2002\final papers\bioccaandharms.pdf.
Bishop, L. & Levine, D. I. (1999). Computer-mediated communication as employee
voice: A case study. Industrial and Labor Relation Review, 52, 213-233. Bos, N., Gergle, D., Olson, J. S., & Olson, G. M. (2001). Being there versus seeing
there: Trust via video. Retrieved March 6, 2009 from http://www.crew.umich.edu\publications\01-01.pdf.
Brehm, S. S., Kassin, S., & Fein, S. (2005). Social Psychology (5th ed.). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company
105
Brown, S. A., Fuller, R. M., & Vician, C. (2004). Who’s afraid of the virtual world? Anxiety and computer-mediated communication. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5, 79-107.
Campbell, D. & Hallam, G. (1994). Manual for the Campbell-Hallam Team
Development Survey. Colorado Springs, CO: National Computer Systems, Inc. Chang, A. (2005). Synchronicity maters! Development of task and social cohesion in ftf
and text based cmc groups. Academy of Management Best Conference Paper, D1-D6.
Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., & Webster, J. (2003). Applicant reactions to face-to-
face and technology-mediated interviews: A field investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 944-953.
Chattopadhay, P., George, E., & Lawrence, S. A. (2004). Why does dissimilarity matter/
Exploring self-categorization, self-enhancement, and uncertainty reduction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 892-900.
Colquitt, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., LePine, J. A. & Sheppard, L. (2002).
Computer-assisted communication and team decision-making performance: The moderating effect of openness to experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 402-410.
Crede, M. & Sniezek, J. A. (2003). Group judgment processes and outcomes in video-
conferencing versus face-to-face groups. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 875-897.
Daft, R. L. & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media
richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554-571. DeLuca, D. & Valacich, J. S. (2006). Virtual teams in and out of synchronicity.
Information Technology & People, 19, 323-344. Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication
processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32, 575-600. Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1993). Computer brainstorms: More heads are better
than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 531-537. Distiller, K. & Thatcher, A. (2005). The effectiveness of teambuilding activity, as carried
out through a computer mediated communication medium: A comparative study. Retrieved March 25, 2008 from http://cyberg_wits.ac.za/cyberg/sessiondocs/cognitive/collab4/collab4.pdf.
106
Driskell, J. E., Radtke, P. H. & Salas, E. (2003). Virtual teams: Effects of technological mediation on team performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 297-323.
Eshan, N., Mirza, E., & Ahmad, M. (2008). Impact of computer-mediated
communication on virtual teams’ performance: An empirical study. Proceedings of World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 32, 2070-3740.
Franz, H. (1999). The impact of computer mediated communication on information
overload in distributed teams. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved March 25, 2008 from http://casdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hics/1999/0001/01/00011028.pdf.
Galushkin, I. (2003). Text message: A potentially rich medium in distributed
organization. Retrieved April 9, 2009 from http://www.cs.queensla.ca/~roel/publications/chi99/gaze.pdf.
Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of
team efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819-832.
Hamlynn-Harris, J. H., Hurst, B. J., von Baggo, K., & Bayley, A. J. (2006). Predictors of
team work satisfaction. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 299-315. Hinds, P. J. & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in
distributed teams. Organization Science, 14, 615-632. Hinkle, D., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. (1994). Applied statistics for behavioral sciences.
(3rd ed.). Princeton, N.J.: Houghton-Mifflin. Howell, D. C. (2004). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA:
Thompson Brooks/Cole. Irem, S. & Dambra, J. (2004). Extending media richness theory: The influence of a
shared social construction. Retrieved March 8, 2009 from http://is2.lse.ac.uk/asp/aspecis/20040155.pdf.
Irmer, B. E., Chang, A., & Bordia, P. (2000). The development of social and task
cohesion in computer-mediated and face-to-face task groups. Academy of Management, 2000, A1-A6.
Isaacs, E. A. & Tang, J. C. (1993). What video can and can’t do for collaboration: A case
study. Proceedings of the First ACM International Conference on Multimedia.
107
Jarvenpaa, S. L. & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791-815.
Jerome, L. W. & Jordan, P. J. (2007). Psychological perspective on presence: The
implications of mediated environments on relationships, behavioral health, and social construction. Psychological Services, 4, 75-84.
Jonas, K. J., Boos, M., & Sassenberg, K. (2002). Unsubscribe, pleeezz!! Management
and training of media competence in computer-mediated communication. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 5, 315-329.
Jonassen, D. H. (2001). Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face-to-
face group problem solving. Educational Technology, research and Development, 49, 35-51.
Jung, D. I., Sosik, J. J., & Baik, K. B. (2000). Investigating work group characteristics
and performance over time: A replication and cross-cultural extension. Group Dynamics: Theory, Practice and Research, 6, 153-171.
Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Upper Saddle River,
N.J.: Prentice Hall. Kerr, D. S. & Murthy, U. S. (2004). Divergent and convergent idea generation in teams:
A comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 381-399.
Klein, G. & Miller, T. E. (1999). Distributed team planning. International Journal of
Cognitive Economics, 3, 203-222. Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of team
empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 175-192.
Kumar, N. & Benbasat, I. (2002). Para-social presence and communication capabilities
of a web site. Retrieved October 16, 2006 from http//:www.iupjournals.org/eservices/es1-3.html.
Kurzendoefer, K. (n. d.). Social presence theory. Retrieved March 8, 2009 from
http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/teams/theory.kurzendoerfer.pdf. Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2004). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to
industrial and organizational psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
108
Leedy, P. D. & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design. (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Leong, F. T. L. & Lewis, M. A. (1994). Review of the Campbell-Hallam Team
Development Survey. Mental Measurements Yearbook. Retrieved August 18, 2008 from Capella University Research Database.
Lim, E. T. K. & Hung, Y. C. (2008). Exploring the concept of para social presence in
virtual project teams. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on Systems sciences, 2008, 1-10.
Liu, A. K., Tsang, P., Kwan, R., Ng, S. C., Cheung, Y. H. Y., & Choy, S. O. (2007). An
evaluation of framework of expertise presence in computer conferences. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 1020-1036.
Manes, J. M. (2008). Social presence: A theoretical construct for evaluation of the
participatory catalog. Retrieved September 13, 2008 from http://conversants.syr.edu/journal/?p=58.
Maruping, L. M., & Agarwal, R. (2004). Managing team interpersonal processes through
technology: A task-technology fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 975-990.
Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia
learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198.
McGuire, T. W., Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated
discussion effects in risk decision making [Electronic version]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 917-930.
McLeod, P. L., Baron. R. S., Marti, M. W., & Yoon, K. (1997). The eyes have it:
Minority influence in face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 706-718.
Na Ubon, A. & Kimble, C. (1997). Supporting the creation of social presence in online
learning communities using asynchronous text-based cmc. Retrieved March 8, 2009 from www.chris-kimble.com/Publications/Documents/Ubon_2003.pdf.
Nedelko, Z. (2007). Videoconferencing in virtual teams. The Business Review,
Cambridge, 7, 164-170. Nelson, K. (2003). Team assessments: A review and analysis of four current team
assessments. Retrieved August 14, 2007 from http://cuburn.edu/research/liter/media/pdfs/eval_conf.papers/2003se_wcky.pdf.
109
Newberry, B. (2001). Media richness, social presence and technology supported communication activities in education. Retrieved September 13, 2008 from http://learninggen.org/resources/lgend101_norm1/200/210.
Pinto, M. B., Pinto, J. K., & Precott, J. E. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of
project team cross-functional cooperation. Management Science, 39, 1281-1298. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2002). Intergroup differentiation in computer-
mediated communication: Effects of depersonalization. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 3-16.
Scheck, S., Allmendinger, K., & Hamann, K. (2008). The effects of media richness on
multilateral negotiations in a collaborative virtual environment. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 20, 57-66.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of
Telecommunications. London: John Wiley. Sia, C., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K. (2002). Group polarization and computer-mediated
communication: Effects of communication cues, social presence, and anonymity Informational Systems Research, 13, 70-90.
Simon, A. F. (2006). Computer-mediated communication: Task performance and
satisfaction. The Journal of Social Psychology. 146, 349-379. Stone, N. J., & Posey, M. (2005). Understanding coordination in computer-mediated
versus face-to-face groups. Poster session presented at the Annual meeting of the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.
Strauss, S. G. & McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task
type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 87-97.
Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and
effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 12-133. Teambuildinginc.com (n. d.). Tall ships™: A game for building effective teams.
Retrieved March 8, 2008 from http://store.teambuildinginc.com/items/team-activities/tall-ships/list.htm?1=1.
Thatcher, A., & DeLaCour, A. (2003). Small group decision-making in face-to-face and
computer mediated environments: The role of personality. Behavior and Information Technology, 22, 203-218.
110
Thompson, L. F., & Coovert, M. D. (2003). Teamwork online: Effects of computer conferencing on perceived confusion, satisfaction, and postdiscussion accuracy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 135-151.
Turoff, M., Hiltz, S. R., Cho, H., Li, Z., & Wang, Y. (2002). Social decision support
systems. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. Retrieved March 25, 2008 from http://hicss.hawaii.edu/hicss-
35/hicsspapers/pdfdocments/clcsc03.pdf. Ubon, A. N. & Kimble, C. (2003). Supporting the creation of social presence in online
learning communities using asynchronous text-based cmc. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Technology in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, July 2003, 295 - 300.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K.W. & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity
and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008-1022.
Vertegaal, R. (1999). The GAZE groupware system: Mediating joint attention in
multiparty communication and collaboration. Proceedings of ACM CHI ’99 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 1999, 294 - 301.
Wheeler, S. (2005). Creating social presence in digital learning environments: A
presence of mind? Retrieved December 15, 2008 from http:\\www.vidolinq.tafe.net\learning2005\papers\wheeler.pdf.
Wikia.com (n. d.). Chrobach’s alpha. Retrieved May 19, 2009
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/chronbach’s alpha. Winum, P. C. & Seamon, T. R. (2000). Developing a team-based organization: A case
study in progress. Consulting Psychology Journal, 52, 82-89. Xue, Y., Sankar, C. S., & Mbarika, V. W. A. (2005). Information technology
outsourcing and virtual team. Journal of Computer Information Systems. Winter 2004- 2005, 9-16.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall. Zastrow, C. (2001). Social Work with Groups: Using the Class as a Group Leadership
Laboratory (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Thompson Learning. Zigurs, I. & Khazanchi, D. (2008). From profiles to patterns: A new view of task-
technology fit. Information Systems Management, 25, 8-13.
111
APPENDIX A
TEAM DEVELOPMENT SURVEY Gender: Male/Female Class Year: 2011 2010 2009 2008 Please rate the following statements according to the rating scale below by circling the appropriate number to indicate how well you agree with each statement.
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
I could easily understand the mission of the team. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] It was easy for our computer mediated team members to understand the goal of the planning process. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I felt I was really part of our computer mediated team. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] If I had to do the same work again in a computer mediated team, I would rather stay in the same computer mediated team. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] If I had to do the same work again, I would rather join a different computer mediated team. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Team members were open and frank in expressing their ideas and feelings. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Team members were committed to the goals and objectives of the team. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Team members recognized and respected individual differences and contributions during the exercise. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I improved my technical ability through this exercise. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I improved my teamwork ability through this exercise. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I improved my decision-making ability through this exercise. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Overall, I was personally satisfied with the computer mediated team decision making process. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Overall, the quality of my computer mediated team’s interaction was high. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]