Groups & Technology (chpt. 11) Flashcards
Face to face (FTF) vs. Computer mediated communication (CMC)
Face to face human touch
- read body cues
- feelings
Computer mediated communication
- direct
- accessible
- mobile
(Straus & McGrath, 1994)
No difference in performing idea-generation and problem-solving tasks
FTF better than CMC on judgmental task
FTF members more satisfied than those in CMC groups after problem-solving and judgmental tasks
Medium and group performance
When task interdependence high:
Such as judgmental task (because reaching consensus involves coordination)
Need more exchange of cues (nonverbal) for effective coordination
Problematic for CMC (Straus & McGrath, 1994)
Medium & decision-making tasks
Member satisfaction & performance (which involves high coordination): FTF > CMC groups
More time needed for CMC groups
Less info exchanged in CMC groups
With unlimited time, the difference may decrease between the two types of groups in terms of decision-making effectiveness
FTF Communication
FTF communication: “less formal and more spontaneous” than other types of communication.
Shorter speaking turns in FTF communication (because easier to regulate turn-taking with nonverbal cues)
FTF communicators check less often whether they listened correctly than people communicating via other media
Initial FTF meeting or engaging in frequent social talk (such as discussing hobbies) may assist in trust development.
“Fit” between communication medium and communication objectives important
Successful teams used e-mail for task-related issues but FTF meeting for teamwork and relationship building (Saphiere, 1996)
Anonymity (anonymous) effects
Anonymity in communication can lead to:
More evaluation apprehension (anonymity can increase harsh, critical remarks)
Less evaluation apprehension (anonymity can make oneself seem invisible)
More conformity to social norms (when group identity becomes salient)
Less conformity to social norms (difficult to exert normative pressure)
Challenges
Difficult to develop “common ground” (mutual knowledge), which facilitates communication
Difficult to establish trust among members
Difficult to monitor and control
Trust
Based on longitudinal study on global student teams (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999):
Trust at initial stage facilitated by “social aspects” (communication, mutual encouragement)
Trust at later stages facilitated by “(team) process- and task-related aspects” (such as reliability, predictability)
Monitoring and control
Use of electronic performance monitoring (EPM):
increased worker stress
its relation to work performance is ambiguous
Fostering “team empowerment” may be more feasible:
“increased task motivation due to team members’ collective, positive assessment of their organizational tasks” (Kirkman et al., 2004)
delegating managerial functions to the group
Virtual team
“Virtual”: work highly dependent on electronic technology
More likely to be used for tasks needing various expertise (such as innovation).
Virtuality
Geographic dispersion
Use of electronic technology/medium
National diversity
Structural dynamism (frequent changes in roles, membership, and member relations)
Virtual teams (Hertel et al., 2005)
Two or more members
Collaborate to achieve common goals
At least one member works at a different location, organization or time location
Coordination is mostly based on electronics
Personnel selection for virtual teams (Hertel et al., 2004)
Professional KSAs and expertise
General cognitive abilities
Taskwork-related attributes (e.g., conscientiousness, integrity)
Teamwork-related attributes (e.g., communication skills)
“Telecooperative” work skills (e.g., self-management skills, trust, intercultural skills)
Successful “launch” of virtual teams (Hertel et al., 2005)
Getting acquainted among members
Clarifying team goals, team member roles, and team processes
Training in the use of communication tools
Developing rules for teamwork
Trust building
Developing high identification with team
Building a “shared interpretive context” (common ground)
Management of virtual teams
Goal setting, and providing frequent, clear feedback linked to team effectiveness
Feedback about social processes (access to socio-emotional feedback) linked to increased motivation, satisfaction, and performance
Can help bridge the distance gap and build cohesion and trust
Task design
Lower degree of physical work
Higher degree of info-based work
Easy separation of subtasks (reduced coordination needed)
Clear success criteria to facilitate feedback
