Virtual Groups and How They Effect Group Communication - Research Paper Example

? Virtual teams Teams are groups of people who work together towards a common goal or intent; they are mutuallydependent and interrelate within a larger organization or environment (Lurey & Raisinghani, 2000). Traditionally, team members, whether social or task based, work in close proximity to each other and are thus co-located. At times such typical teams may incorporate members who are distant from each other but are able to meet face-to-face on a regular basis (Hamilton, Hodgkinson & Byatt, 2010). Virtual teams on the other hand can be separated across space and time peripheries and have a very low level if any, of face-to-face interaction. Instead they connect through communication technologies and computers, provide an unparalleled amount of flexibility (Powell, Piccoli & Ives, 2004) and are unified only by a shared function or rationale (Lurey & Raisinghani, 2000). This paper aims to review the literature and research that focuses on the characteristics of small virtual groups in an effort to determine how virtual group interaction affects performance and to make comparisons between performance of small virtual teams and more traditional co-located small teams. Small groups usually consist of three to fifteen members (Socha, 1997) with the ideal size being five to seven (Cragan & Wright, 1999) with every member having an influence on each other and are interdependent. In other words if something occurs to or influences one member it impacts on other group members; the behavior of one group member effects both the way other group members relate to each other (relational behavior) and how they finish the task or attain their goal (task behavior) (Bertcher, 1994). According to Myers & Anderson (2008) interdependence is a fundamental characteristic of a small group and at the end of the day will influence how the group achieves its goal or task which is the initial and most important reason the group is formed. Tasks can be additive, wherein the small group members work separately on one component of a task and when all components are completed they amalgamate their endeavors to produce one ultimate outcome, or they can be conjunctive, wherein the group works together to produce the final outcome (Steiner, 1972). In the case of additive tasks the small group is not interdependent until the end when they unite their work but with conjunctive tasks they are interdependent from start to finish. Apart from the task, interdependence and size, Myers & Anderson (2008) claimed that small groups contain three further features of communication which are ‘norms, identity and talk’ (p.9). He further claimed that the norms of small group behavior are the rules or regulations pertaining to members of the group, and can be social, procedural or task based, and if not upheld by a group member sanctions may be imposed on that member. Norms therefore shape small group behavior and govern the way in which group members undertake their task, interact and create their identity - the physical and psychological limits that differentiate small groups and group members. Communication is the most important feature of small groups in terms of defining their identity and consists of four different types of talk as posited by Cragan & Wright (1999) that include role talk, problem-solving talk, encounter talk and consciousness-raising talk. Myers & Anderson (2008) claimed that a small group that is able to balance all four talk types will be more effective and succeed in its task, whereas a small group that places too much emphasis on one type over another or does not employ any one type may alienate some members and not accomplish their task. To summarize the characteristics of small group communication there are three major qualities – size, interdependence and task, and three minor qualities – norms, talk and identity, that influence the way in which group members interact and communicate. Research shows that much has been suggested and purported in terms of virtual communication processes and structures but the language encasing this research is not clearly defined or delineated. Suchan & Hayzak (2001) for example provided a set of characteristics defining a virtual team: it is focused on a particular goal and at least one member of the team is located in a different location, time or organization; communication is achieved through cyber facilitated sources and electronic media, and usually disperse on attainment of their goal or task. Niederman & Beise (1999) proposed three categories of virtual teams dependent on the amount of face-to-face interaction involved and the use of information technology. They considered a team that infrequently meets electronically or face-to face as a ‘low-low’ virtual team; a team that uses a high level of electronic communication and a low usage of face-to face communication as a highly-virtual team; a team that has a high usage of both electronic communication and face-to-face communications as the best arrangement and called fully supported. Although there appears to be an abundance of research pertaining to virtual teams there seems very little that focus on the processes on how they develop over time. Jarvenpaa & Leidner (1999) (cited in Sarker & Sahey, 2003) contended a case for a developmental stance to understand the processes of virtual group growth and advancement. Such a view considers the amount of cohesion and maturity a group cultivates over time as they work together, collaborate, develop relationships and adopt roles within the team, and is thus focuses on the networks and organizational structures of virtual teams. Sarker & Sahay (2003) believed that virtual teams have distinctive complexities because of their separation in terms of time, space and culture, and that these complexities impact on aspects such as identity, trust, communication, socialization and satisfaction. They further claimed that virtual teams are different to face-to-face teams in a number of basic ways and set out to develop a theoretical model describing how virtual teams progress while undertaking a task or project, and to explain how such development, communication and cooperation correlate. Other terminology has been used in relation to virtual teams including ‘computer-mediated communication and computer-supported cooperative work’ (Driskell, Radtke & Salas, 2003, p.297) but most research adheres to the core feature of virtual teams as being a group of interdependent members who collaborate on a mutual task, are spatially segregated and use information technology (Lipnack & Stamps, 2000). Burlea (2007) took this definition further to encompass the notion that such teams are dynamic in that they are constantly rearranging themselves in accordance with time and the different competencies required to achieve the goals or task. She further claimed that virtual teams signify more enhanced renderings of traditional face-to-face teams and are cohesively strong. In face-to-face communication, information (messages) are sent and received in real time and members have the added assistance in comprehension of body language in terms of eye contact, gestures and facial expressions as well as other attributes of being physically present with other team members. Contextual cues impart information on how the message is conveyed, the mood of the sender, the status of the speaker and whether others in the team are listening, understanding and agreeing or not. In contrast, virtual teams do not have such communicative assistance and some research has pointed out that face-to-face communication is enhanced in comparison to virtual teams, decisions take longer to emerge within virtual teams, and team member satisfaction is lower (McLeod, 1992). Others like Hightower & Sayeed (1996) and Warkentin, Sayeed & Hightower (1997), claimed that virtual teams are less effective and less cohesive than face-to-face teams. Without situational and contextual cues evidenced in face-to-face teams, members of virtual teams are unaware of their influence on other team members leading to misunderstandings and breakdowns in communication, and improper rejection of actions or manners that may be regarded as appropriate in face-to-face communication and vice versa (Cramton, 2001). This lack of non-verbal clues also impairs the dynamics of interpersonal interaction and communication; it impacts negatively on the ability of team members to develop relations with other members of the team which is crucial for the social aspects of collaborative teams, whether face-to-face or virtual (Walther & Parks, 2002). Cascio (2002) claimed that in just the same way, trust between members of a virtual team is just as difficult to acquire, generate and maintain. The primary benefit of virtual teams according to Serrat (2009) is their lack of geographical constraints thus providing means of flexibility in the procurement of talent; the main disadvantage as seen by Serrat (2009) however are feelings of isolation by team members and lack of trust. The definition of trust was considered by Jarvenpaa & Leidner (1998) wherein they found that virtual teams can encounter a type of trust known as ‘swift’ trust (p.794) that is founded on the configuration of the team concerned with a particular task communicating electronically, and is short lived and fragile. They found that virtual teams that started with high levels of trust were more successful in dealing with expectations, uncertainty and complications of their environment than those with low levels of trust at either the start or finish or both. They further found that among the virtual group members who fostered early trust nine different behaviors were evident that included social and predictable communication, leadership, the conveyance of enthusiasm, personal initiative, dealing with uncertainty, judicious response, placid response to crisis and progress from procedures to tasks. Another factor to consider in terms of small virtual group performance is the effects that computers have on the team. One such study that focused on the impact of computers in terms of cohesiveness was undertaken by Ehsan, Mirza, & Ahmad (2008). Their results negated most prior research in that their study provided statistical data to show that computers impacted positively on virtual team members in terms of their commitment to the task and group pride that resulted in an increase of productivity. Earlier studies however, had ascertained negative impacts of computers on virtual teams in terms of cohesiveness leading to a decrease in group performance. It is important to note however, that Ehsan, Mirza & Ahmad (2008) concluded that technological communication does not miraculously improve performance and that virtual teams need to use them efficiently in order to develop group pride, loyalty and trust and to achieve their goals. Balthazard, Potter & Warren (2002) found that it is not individual virtual team member personalities or expertise that predicts performance outcomes but that the group styles do. They considered that in order to understand virtual team performance it is necessary to determine the characteristics of face-to-face teams that distinguish low performing teams from high performing teams. The style of interaction is one characteristic that they claimed has a great effect on the communication and performance of traditional small groups by obstructing information exchange; such styles are ascertained from the individual group members and their particular personalities and can be classified into passive, constructive and aggressive styles (Cooke & Szumal, 1993). A member with a passive style places more focus on keeping harmony in the group, minimizing questions, sharing of information and feeling satisfaction when group goals are attained; a member with a constructive style possesses a balanced involvement with group and personal goals, and is creative, cooperative, exchanges information openly and freely, and has respect for the opinions and viewpoints of other team members; a member with an aggressive style on the other hand, is more concerned with their own personal successes and achievements and considers their own objectives above those of the group. Constuctive face-to-face teams usually arrive at better quality solutions than those found by passive groups and more acceptable than those produced by both passive and aggressive teams (Cooke & Szumal, 1994). Individual team members working within traditional face-to-face teams each bring their own personalities that consist of five dimensions that have been proven to have validity (McCrae & John, 1989). The five personality dimensions purported by McCrae & John (1989) are conscientiousness, openness, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and neuroticism. They further found that expertise relates in a positive way to team performance so long as the team heeds, considers and improves on that expertise and that when extraverted individuals put emphasis on social instead of task processes such a process occurs. The ultimate outcomes of Balthazard, Potter & Warren’s (2002) study revealed that within small virtual teams ‘extraversion leads to constructive and/or aggressive styles and that differences in extraversion within a team lead to passive styles’. In terms of performance they found that team errors are less with expertise and high levels of expertise result in behaviors that are non-constructive, and that extraversion results in more team errors. They were unable however, to find any relationship between acceptance of solutions and extraversion. They concluded by stating that for either virtual or face-to-face teams to do well there must be an appropriate amount of team knowledge and a willingness to share and further develop that knowledge in order to find best solutions. In conclusion, virtual teams are most definitely the way of the future and strategies need to be developed to cope with the new variety of challenges they generate. While they seemingly lack some of the characteristics of face-to-face teams in terms of interaction, physical and situational clues and are working in different space, time and culture they also have the benefits of flexibility. Like all teams however, they need clear tasks and goals; research to date provides conflicting opinions on the differences between virtual teams and traditional teams and the way in which group interaction impacts on their performance. Although research and studies pertaining to virtual teams covers a gamut of disciplines and aspects such as communication, interaction, personalities and styles there appears to be a lack of research on the psychological and social variables of virtual teams. What is most evident however, is that in order to fully understand and develop virtual group performance, understanding group dynamics is fundamental. References Balthazard, P. Pteer, R. & Warren, J. (2002). The effects of extaversion and expertise on virtual team interaction and performance. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved 20 June, 2011. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.108.6880%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=The%20Effects%20of%20Extraversion%20and%20Expertise%20on%20Virtual%20Team%20Interaction%20and&ei=IaX-TYzKOIfTrQfU3_XoDw&usg=AFQjCNE2MlesC0woN1mQlfGJ-HT4H00Jcw&cad=rjt Bertcher, H. J. (1994). Group participation: Techniques for leaders and members (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Burlea, A. (2007). The communication process in virtual teams. Informatica Economica, nr. Vol.1(14), pp.113-116. Retrieved 18 June, 2011 http://revistaie.ase.ro/content/41/schiopoiu.pdf Cooke, R. & Szumal, J. (1993). Measuring normative beliefs and shared behavioral expectations in organizations: the reliability and validity of the organizational culture inventory. Psychological Reports, vol. 72, pp.1299-1330. Cooke, R. & Szumal, J. (1994). The impact of group interaction styles on problem-solving effectiveness. Journal Of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 30(4), pp.415-437. Cragan, J. & Wright, D.W. (1999). Communication in small groups: Theory, process, skills (5th ed.). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth. Cramton, C. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, vol. 12(3), pp.346-371. Retrieved 19 June, 2011. http://mason.gmu.edu/~ccramton/Abstract%20mutual%20knowledge.pdf Driskell, J., Radtke, P. & Salas, E. (2003). Virtual teams: effects of technological mediation on team performance. Group Dynamics, Theory, Research, and Practice, vol. 7 (4) pp.297-323. Retreived 18 June, 2011. http://www.floridamaxima.com/virtualteams.pdf Ehsan, N., Mirza, E. & Ahmad, M. (2008). Impact of computer-mediated communication on virtual teams’ performance: an empirical study. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol.42. Retrieved 19 June, 2011. http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v42/v42-129.pdf Hamilton, G., Hodgkinson, J. & Byatt, G. (2010). Communication risks within and around a virtual team. Retrieved 18 June, 2011. http://www.cio.com.au/article/370285/communication_risks_within_around_virtual_team Hightower, R. & Sayeed, L. (1996). Effects of communication mode and prediscussion information distribution characteristics on information exchange in groups. Information Systems Research, vol.7 (4), pp.451-465. Jarvenpaa, S. & Leidner, D. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, vol.10(6), pp.791-815. Retrieved 17 June, 2011. http://portfoliohol239.wikispaces.com/file/view/communication+and+trust+in+global+virtual+teams.pdf Lipnack, J. & Stamps, J. (2000), Virtual Teams, 2nd ed., John Wiley, New York, NY. Lurey, J. & Raisinghani, M. (2008). An empirical study of best practices in virtual teams. Life and Management 1914, 1-22. Retrieved 19 June, 2011. http://www.plusdelta.net/articles/I%26M_Best_Practices_Virtual_Teams_Article.pdf McCrae, R. & Costa, P. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggin's Circumplex and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol.56, pp. 586-595. McLeod, P. L. (1992). An assessment of the experimental literature on electronic support of groupwork: results of a meta-analysis. Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 7, 2 pp.57–280. Myers, S. & Anderson, C. (2008). The Fundamentals of Small Group Communication. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Myers (2007). Niederman, F. & Beise, C. (1999). Defining the “virtualness” of groups, teams and meetings. Retrieved 19 June, 2011. http://www.ug.it.usyd.edu.au/~isys3000/s2_2005/docs/week7.pdf Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research. Database for Advances in Information Systems, vol.35(1), pp.6-36. Saker, S. & Sahey, S. (2003). Understanding virtual team development: an interpretive study. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, vol.4, pp.1-38. Retrieved 18 June, 2011. http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~sundeeps/Publicationsnew/Sundeep%20webpagework/sarkersundee%20virtualteam.pdf Socha, T. (1997). Group communication across the life span. In L. R. Frey & J. K. Barge (Eds.), Managing group life: Communicating in decision-making groups (pp. 3–28). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Steiner, I. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press. Suchan, J. & Hayzak, G. (2001). The communication characteristics of virtual teams: a case study. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 44(3), pp.174-186. Walther, J. & Parks, M. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: computer-mediated communication and relationships. In Knapp, M. & Daly, J. (eds.) Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp.529-563. Warkentin, M., Sayeed, L. & Hightower, R. (1997). Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: an exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decision Science, vol. 28, pp.975–996. Retireved 20 June, 2011. http://personal.stevens.edu/~ysakamot/730/paper/doe1.pdf Read More