campbell hallman team assesment
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.
______________________________________________________________
UMI Microform 3366091Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
_______________________________________________________________
ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
© Teresa M. Bennett, 2009
ii
Abstract
As organizations are increasingly accomplishing tasks through the use of teams,
computer-mediated collaborations are becoming more commonplace. Distance between
team members and a lack of visual interaction can affect their development and
performance. Research is limited in examining differences between distributed teams
using various computer-mediated technologies, particularly those with less social (visual)
presence versus those with more. Organizations, such as the military, have difficulty
determining the type of media and the time to introduce media for teams required to plan
and perform tasks while geographically separated. This research compared distributed
teams using asynchronous and synchronous communication media in planning a task and
then changing their method of communication for planning a subsequent task. Team
development, through administration of the Hallam-Campbell Team Development
Survey (adapted for computer-mediated teams) and performance were measured after
both tasks. The findings of this research found little differences between teams as they
moved from one method of communication to another as well as between teams using
different methods of communication. Recommendations include further examination of
teams using mixed communication methods at different times for their planning and
execution of tasks. The results of this study are expected to help both organizations and
educational institutions that utilize teams to more adequately assess the choice of
computer-mediated media in a distributed environment.
iii
Dedication
This work is dedicated to my family. Without them, none of this would have been
possible. First and foremost, this is dedicated to my husband, Wink. You are my rock,
my best friend, and love of my life. No words can come close to express how much your
love and support has meant to me over these years. I would not have made it this far
without you by my side. To my loving children, Jackson and Shidela, I am truly blessed
to have you both in my life. Always my cheerleaders, I kept J-man and S-girl’s advice
close to heart…“Don’t give up Mom, keep trying!” And to my Dad and in loving
memory of both my mother and grandmother, who instilled the value of hard work, no
matter what the goal, and would toast this occasion with glasses raised high!
iv
Acknowledgments
It is with sincere gratitude that I convey my thanks and appreciation to my
committee chair and mentor Dr. Bruce Gillies who has been beyond instrumental in
helping me through this long journey. As I slowly completed each milestone and
encountered unexpected obstacles along the way, his professional advice, patience, and
encouragement kept me going. I also would like to thank both Dr. Thomas Vail and Dr.
Sara Jarvis for being invaluable members of my committee.
I would also like to personally thank Captains Ira Shurig and Chad Tossel,
Lieutenants Chad Sucillon and Crystal Murray, and Ms. Margaret Shurig. The help from
everyone in this study was very much appreciated.
Finally, I would like to thank Capella University for being a well-rounded and
dedicated institution allowing working professionals, parents, or both to pursue their
professional and personal aspirations. Each individual within the University from
counselors (thank you, Dr. Larson), technical support, colloquia staff, to instructors has
been a pleasure to work with and has made a difference not only towards my personal
achievements but for countless others.
v
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments iv
List of Figures viii
List of Tables ix
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Significance of Study
Research Design
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Assumptions and Limitations
Definition of Terms
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
CHAPTER 2. LITERAURE REVIEW 15
Introduction
Social Interaction and Teams
Research on Computer-Mediated Distributed Teams
Theories Guiding Computer-Mediated Distributed Teams
Social Presence and Team Development and Performance
vi
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 39
Purpose of the Study
Research Design
Target Population and Participant Selection
Procedures
Measures
Re-statement of Research Hypotheses
Data Analysis
Expected Findings
CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSES AND RESULTS 52
Introduction
Description of Sample
Data Analysis
Summary
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENTATIONS 69
Introduction
Findings and Data Interpretation
Limitations
Suggestions for Future Studies
Conclusions
Summary
REFERENCES 104
vii
APPENDIX A: TEAM DEVELOPMENT SURVEY 111
APPENDIX B: MATERIAL COST SHEET 112
APPENDIX C: TASK PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET 113
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Overall Study Design 41
Figure 2. Study Design – Hypothesis 1 46
Figure 3. Study Design – Hypothesis 2 47
Figure 4. Study Design – Hypothesis 3 47
Figure 5. Study Design – Hypothesis 4 48
Figure 6. Study Design – Hypothesis 5 48
Figure 7. Study Design – Hypothesis 6 49
Figure 8. Study Design – Hypothesis 7 49
Figure 9. Distribution of Team Development Survey Responses Task 1 55
Figure 10. Distribution of Team Development Survey Responses Task 2 55
ix
List of Tables
Table 1. Distribution of Team Type 53
Table 2. Cronbach’s Alpha for Task 1 and Task 2 56
Table 3. Results in Team Development – Hypothesis 1 58
Table 4. Results in Task Performance – Hypothesis 2 59
Table 5. Results in Team Development – Hypothesis 3 61
Table 6. Results in Task Performance – Hypothesis 4 62
Table 7. Results in Team Development – Hypothesis 5 64
Table 8. Results in Task Performance – Hypothesis 6 65
Table 9. Results in Task Performance on Task 1– Hypothesis 7 66
Table 10. Results in Task Performance on Task 2– Hypothesis 7 66
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Background of the Problem
Is distance detrimental to team success? Is personal interaction necessary for a team
to develop a bond with each other? In the twenty-first century, it is widely known that
organizations are saying good-bye to the conference room and are relying on technology
to bring teams together. While the importance of teams in terms of innovation and
productivity for the organization continues to grow, so does the prevalence of team
members being geographically separated. By 2006, as many as 67 million people were
predicted to be tele-working in the United States with teams forming across functional
areas, time zones, as well as nationalities (Belanger & Watson-Manheim, 2006).
What distinguishes a team from just a group of people working together? Teams are
considered those which have members with a common purpose, interdependent roles, and
complementary skills (Yukl, 2002). The key word here distinguishing a team is
interdependence. Groups include members who may work together or share resources;
however, a team’s tasks are dependent upon the work of others to be fully successful.
Organizations are increasingly using teams to capitalize upon their strengths and abilities
to work together.
There are four constructs considered essential to develop team communication and
cooperation. These are super-ordinate goals, physical proximity, accessibility, and rules
and procedures (Pinto, Pinto, & Prescott, 1993). Physical proximity can influence the
frequency and type of interactions, as well as actual communication that occurs among
team members. Proximity, however, is a construct that needs to be re-considered with
the increasing use of electronic communication. Teams are more distributed these days
2
and communicate via e-mail and other electronic media. Distributed teams are known to
meet when and where they want, send and receive information faster, and share
information simultaneously to multiple members (Thompson & Coovert, 2003).
With a lack of physical proximity, distributed teams must still be successful and all
factors must be considered that impact their effectiveness and ability to function. Team
effectiveness has been described through Landy and Conte’s (2004) input-process-output
model. This model suggests that a variety of inputs combine to influence team processes,
which in turn, affect its outputs. Team development is considered dependent upon
interpersonal processes, and it is suggested that team effectiveness be considered a
process as opposed to end state (output) (Sundstrom, De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990).
Team processes describe the inter-workings and social interaction of a group. There
are numerous variables that can reflect intra-group process, which is defined as the
interaction that takes place among members (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998).
These processes are identified as norms, cohesion, communication and coordination, and
decision making (Landy & Conte, 2004). Exchange of information is important for the
team to effectively have its members accomplish their tasks.
Interpersonal processes are facilitated by a sense of connection. A sense of social
presence, or connectivity among members, is deemed one of the most important factors
which help team members actively collaborate (Ubon & Kimble, 2003). Social presence
is considered essential for successful communication and dynamics within a team
(Thatcher & DeLaCour, 2003). Social influence within a group discussion is transmitted
through verbal and “social context cues” (for example, seating position and body
language) (McGuire, Kiesler, & Siegel, 1987). Team members in a traditional face-to-
3
face setting, obviously, are able to experience the impact of social presence and its
influences.
Distributed teams communicating electronically, however, can have difficulty
establishing relationships among team members. With low social presence, studies have
demonstrated an increased level of frustration among computer-mediated teams as
compared to face-to-face teams (Thompson & Coovert, 2003). A such, distributed team
members also encounter issues in development and performance (Sia, Yan, & Wei, 2002;
Maruping & Agarwal, 2004).
Statement of the Problem
One of the most distributed organizations today is the military. It is essential that
members of the military be able to train team members, no matter how far apart they are.
In the Air Force, distributed mission operations involve the planning and execution of
complex flight missions with aircrew members in separate locations. Actual flight
training is accomplished across the world with team members using advanced simulators
which are connected real-time. Teams perform pre-flight planning, mission execution,
and post-flight brief using a variety of technologies to communicate with each other. The
types of computer-mediated communication chosen to accomplish these discussions do
vary by the amount of social presence that they provide.
Distributed aircrew teams have been known to use synchronous (e.g.,
videoconferencing), asynchronous (e.g., e-mail, text chat, or electronic chat room), or a
mixture of technologies for completing training missions. However, there is uncertainty
as to which facilitates optimal team planning and performance. Currently in the
4
distributed mission operations environment, choice of communication medium is
sometimes left to the aircrew or personnel facilitating the training.
With the amount and type of information to be communicated by the team, it is not
clear which computer-mediated approach is most effective as synchronous and
asynchronous methods each have their own advantages/disadvantages and variance in
terms of “social presence.” In addition, it is uncertain whether initial use of more
“socially present” technologies (such as video synchronous communication) is warranted.
Some early interaction of team members that provide social interaction may be sufficient
in establishing the development teams and impact their performance and allow
subsequent interactions with different methods of communication.
It is advocated by researchers in this field that computer-mediated teams chose their
communication technology carefully as teams rely on it to facilitate collaboration
(Thompson & Coovert, 2003). Organizations look to computer-mediated technologies to
save them millions of dollars by linking distributed team members. But, the other side of
this is that computer-mediated communications among distributed team members can
cost an organization if team members cannot work effectively with one another. The
majority of research in this area, however, has concentrated solely on the effectiveness of
computer-mediated teams as they compare to traditional face-to-face teams (Thompson &
Coovert, 2003; Kerr & Murthy, 2004; Maruping & Agarwal, 2004; Thatcher &
DeLaCour, 2005). There is limited understanding of differences between types of
computer-mediated teams by the technologies employed.
5
Purpose of the Study
This study compared distributed, computer-mediated teams who chose different
methods of communication in terms of both team development and performance.
Specifically, this study included the examination teams that use either synchronous or
asynchronous form of computer-mediated communication for their initial interaction and
then changed communication media for performance of a subsequent task. Team
development was assessed after teams used different computer-mediated communication
media to plan a task. In addition, task performance by each team after using these
methods of communication to plan was also measured.
It is intended that these findings provide insight not only for distributed aircrew
mission teams to help them determine an optimal communication method, but also for
other types of distributed teams used across other organizations. It is anticipated that the
results of this research will help improve the selection of media for distributed teams and
facilitate improvements for team development and performance with the team, regardless
of communication method(s). Results of this study will also provide insight whether
introduction of certain types of computer-mediated communication method in the
planning of the first task teams are required to accomplish result in higher team
development or performance.
Significance of the Study
Organizations that have a high percentage of distributed teams, such as the military,
are realizing the importance of choosing the most effective and cost-efficient
communication technologies. Distributed mission operations for aircrew training provide
an opportunity for the military to reduce costs associated with face-to-face training
6
including travel of trainees and trainers, lodging, and aircraft maintenance. For
distributed operations to realize its cost-savings and continue to demonstrate a positive
impact on team training performance, the selection of effective media methods (or
mixture of methods) for exercises is essential. As with all organizations using distributed
teams, the military seeks to consider future investments into technologies offering the
latest synchronous video-conferencing capabilities, and results such as those that this
study will provide may provide valuable insight as to what, if any, additional investments
are needed.
The field of psychology has studied over the years various dimensions of team
dynamics and performance. Many of the theories and concepts supporting team
development are very relevant for distributed teams. However, psychologists are just
beginning to examine them in light of the nature of distributed teams as well as the
impact of using various technologies.
Despite the fact that the prevalence of computer-mediated teams is continually
increasing in today’s organizations, research in this area has mostly centered on the
comparison of computer-mediated teams to those that meet in traditional face-to-face
environments (Thompson & Coovert, 2003; Dennis & Valacich, 1993). As such, there is
growing need for research understanding the differences between computer-mediated
teams themselves. In addition, there is little research examining teams that use a mixture
of computer-mediated technologies over time. Teams are increasingly becoming a
“hybrid” composition, and there is a great desire for researchers to examine teams that
use different technologies at different times during the team process (Belanger et al.,
2006).
7
Research Design
This research project is a randomized experimental design whereas subjects are
assigned to teams who vary by method of communication in order to examine the
differences between computer-mediated teams both in team development and
performance. Modeling the research after distributed mission operation processes, teams
were allowed to plan for a task using computer-mediated communication using either
asynchronous (text-based chat) or synchronous (video conferencing) media and then
perform the assigned task in a synchronous (video or face-to-face) environment.
Asynchronous communication in this research included team members communicating
via text chat media. Synchronous communication occurred through the use of
videoconferencing software and allowed visual communication to occur between team
members.
Some organizations, such as the military, have no choice in terms of communication
method used for planning and/or task execution. Distributed mission operation exercises
arbitrarily use asynchronous or synchronous computer-mediated communication for
planning and synchronous media for task performance. However, there is a high price in
using videoconferencing synchronous communication media on a continuous basis when
face-to-face interaction is not always possible. Therefore, there is a desire to compare
teams that use different computer-mediated communication for planning in terms of both
the development and performance of the team.
After the planning phase for each task, team members were administered the Team
Development Survey to examine the differences between teams who use asynchronous
versus synchronous methods of communication. The Team Development Survey
8
measures elements of mission clarity, group cohesion, group behavior, skill development,
and personal satisfaction. Upon completion of the survey, teams performed a planned
task and were measured for performance when the task was completed. The study also
involved teams planning a second task using a different media for communication than
the first task (asynchronous or synchronous, respectively). Teams subsequently
performed the second task using the same method as used to perform the first task
(synchronous or face-to-face). The same measures from the Team Development Survey
and task performance were obtained from the teams as they planned and executed the
second task.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The research questions for this study centered on development and performance for
teams using different methods of computer-mediated communication in their planning
stages of task performance. If teams execute tasks using the same communication
method, do they differ in performance if they plan for the mission (task) when they use
different technologies? Do teams that have less social presence in planning have as much
team development as those who plan with more social presence? Is there any affect in
performance when teams who have social presence in planning for one task and do not
have as much social presence in planning an additional task?
The hypotheses of this research are organized in the following areas as they relate to
the research questions above. These areas are (a) synchronous versus asynchronous
teams (Hypotheses 1 and 2), (b) changing from asynchronous to synchronous teams
(Hypotheses 3 and 4), (c) changing from synchronous to asynchronous teams
9
(Hypotheses 5 and 6), and (d) synchronous versus face-to-face team performance
(Hypothesis 7).
Synchronous versus Asynchronous Teams: Hypotheses 1 and 2
The first two hypotheses for this study pertain to the differences seen between
asynchronous and synchronous teams as they plan for Task 1. The hypotheses are that:
Hypothesis 1: For Task 1, teams using asynchronous planning have statistically
significant lower team development, as measured by the Team Development Survey,
compared to teams that plan synchronously.
Null Hypothesis 1: For Task 1, teams using asynchronous planning have no
difference in team development, as measured by the Team Development Survey,
compared to teams that plan synchronously.
Hypothesis 2: For Task 1, teams using asynchronous planning have statistically
significant lower performance, compared to teams that plan synchronously.
Null Hypothesis 2: For Task 1, teams using asynchronous planning have no
difference in performance compared to teams that plan synchronously.
Changing from Asynchronous to Synchronous Teams: Hypotheses 3 and 4
Another set of hypotheses are concerned with the difference seen for teams that
change from asynchronous communication in planning the first task to synchronous
communication in planning the second task. Considering the importance of social
presence in the communication of teams, having the use of video technologies for future
team interaction is expected to show an impact on subsequent planning and execution.
Therefore, the hypotheses for changing from asynchronous to synchronous teams are:
10
Hypothesis 3: Teams that plan Task 1 asynchronously and plan Task 2
synchronously have statistically significant higher team development, as measured by the
Team Development Survey, for Task 2.
Null Hypothesis 3: Teams that plan Task 1 asynchronously and plan Task 2
synchronously have no difference in team development, as measured by the Team
Development Survey, between Task 1 and Task 2.
Hypothesis 4: Teams that plan Task 1 asynchronously and plan Task 2
synchronously have statistically significant higher performance for Task 2.
Null Hypothesis 4: Teams that plan Task 1 asynchronously and plan Task 2
synchronously have no difference in performance between Task 1 and Task 2.
Changing from Synchronous to Asynchronous Teams: Hypotheses 5 and 6
For those teams having social presence in planning their first task, they should
realize the benefits of such visual interaction. This set of hypotheses are concerned with
the difference seen for teams who plan the first task using synchronous communication
and then plan the second task using asynchronous communication.
Hypothesis 5: Teams that plan Task 1 synchronously and plan Task 2
asynchronously have statistically significant lower team development, as measured by the
Team Development Survey, for Task 2.
Null Hypothesis 5: Teams that plan Task 1 synchronously and plan Task 2
asynchronously have no statistically significant difference in team development, as
measured by the Team Development Survey, between Task 1 and Task 2.
Hypothesis 6: Teams that plan Task 1 synchronously and plan Task 2
asynchronously have statistically significant lower performance for Task 2.
11
Null Hypothesis 6: Teams that plan Task 1 synchronously and plan Task 2
asynchronously have no statistically significant difference in performance between Task
1 and Task 2.
Synchronous versus Face-to-Face Team Performance: Hypothesis 7
The final set of hypotheses relate to task execution. Teams will be performing the
tasks by one of two forms of synchronous communication, by video teleconference or
face-to-face. Because Distributed Mission Operations are solely conducted using
synchronous technologies, results of teams using different methods for planning are to be
compared to traditional face-to-face teams. Social presence offered by synchronous
communication is expected to have similar benefits as traditional face-to-face interaction.
Thus, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 7: Teams that execute Task 1 and Task 2 face-to-face have statistically
significant higher performance as compared to teams that execute tasks synchronously.
Null Hypothesis 7: Teams that execute Task 1 and Task 2 face-to-face have no
statistically significant difference in performance as compared to teams that execute tasks
synchronously.
Assumptions and Limitations
Because this study compared computer-mediated teams, it is assumed that all
members are proficient in the electronic medium with which they are being asked to use.
With the prevalence of computers today, there is an understanding that all subjects
assigned to the computer-mediated groups are experienced with their use. It is also
assumed that subjects will have an equal opportunity to participate in this research.
12
There are some limitations to this study, particularly in terms of generalizability of
the study results. First, the software/technology used in this study could vary from real-
world computer-mediated teams including the ability of the members to see and hear
each other based on utilization of straight e-mail correspondence, video conferencing,
and web-based presentations. Because the technologies used by computer-mediated
groups may vary, the results may be difficult to generalize across all types of computer-
mediated teams. Second, the tasks used in this study require the members to plan a
strategy and build a mock ship mast with the materials given. Research supports the
notion that different types of tasks require different levels and types of communication
media; therefore, there is an acknowledgement that the results may not be applicable to
all types of team tasks (Thompson & Coovert, 2003).
Conclusions may not be relevant to all types of teams because of the particular
subjects chosen in this study. There are implications for the generalizability of results in
using students. Students are acknowledged to have less subject knowledge and
experience in the domain in which the communication would take place. Research has
shown that teams that are new to working as a group require a different level of
communication and may generate different study results (Thompson & Coovert, 2003).
Research involving teams should consider work groups who have some knowledge and
expertise in the tasks that are being discussed.
In addition, there may be some concern that the students may have prior social
interaction that may influence the assessment of “true” distributed teams. 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
13
project, however, sought to minimize this possible limitation by having volunteers of
freshman students participate in the research. In particular, this research recruited newly
enrolled (freshman) students who have had little opportunity to socialize prior to conduct
of the research. Prior student interaction will also be minimized by the fact that student
teams will be assembled to work with each other in the context of the particular task
assignments for the first time.
Definition of Terms
Computer-mediated communication - process by which people create, exchange, and
perceive information using networked communication or computer systems to facilitate
the transmission of messages and/or images.
Computer-mediated teams – teams that use computer-mediated communications to
accomplish a goal or objective.
Distributed mission operation – the practice of training aircrews that are
geographically separated, yet still conduct mission planning and execution as those
aircrews who meet face-to-face.
Mission planning – the meeting(s) conducted by aircrews to discuss operations to be
performed as part of flight training or real-world flight missions.
Asynchronous communication - communication in which there is no timing
requirement for transmission and in which individuals submit individual contributions to
the communication at any time. In this study, asynchronous communication means text
chat or e-mail messaging.
14
Face-to-face team – a team in which its members share the same physical location,
can see and hear one another, receive messages real-time as they are produced, and send
and receive information simultaneously.
Synchronous communication- recurring or operating at exactly the same periods;
synchronous communications occur in real time. For this research, synchronous means
video communications.
Social presence – refers to the amount of social or visual contact or sense of
interaction. For this research, it is conveyed through visual contact.
Virtual teams – teams operating with members not co-located and interact through
some sort of technological medium.
Tele-presence – factors normally present for face-to-face groups available to
distributed groups.
15
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to review the previous research conducted in
examining computer-mediated teams, the issues surrounding the use of various computer-
mediated technologies, the theories developed to date which try to explain such issues,
and the lack of research surrounding more practical uses of computer-mediated
technologies. Traditional research has focused on comparing computer-mediated teams
to traditional face-to-face teams; however, the technological choices for computer-
mediated teams continue to evolve and warrant continual evaluation within the choices of
media themselves. Practically, organizations may not have the choice of deciding
between traditional face-to-face and computer-mediated environments for having their
teams work together. Organizations, such as the military, are faced with distributed team
environments no matter what the task. Therefore, there is a growing need for examining
the difference between computer-mediated teams. With team interaction technologies
emerging on a continuum ranging from high to low social presence, understanding the
impact of different forms of computer-mediated communication on team performance
and development is important.
The literature surveyed for this study was achieved using various resources. Search
of relevant journal articles within library databases as well as internet search engines was
accomplished by querying with key words such as: virtual team, computer-mediated,
asynchronous versus synchronous communication, distributed teams, and social presence.
Different library databases were utilized, both in the area of psychology as well as
business and technology. With computer-mediated communication being a relevant
16
subject for not only Industrial/Organizational Psychology, other career field areas also
investigated included Business, Information Technology, and Education.
Social Interaction and Teams
The word “team” often means a group of people who have a common purpose,
interdependent roles, and complementary skills (Yukl, 2002). A team is more than a
simple gathering of people. A team has a shared mutual goal or clearly defined purpose
such as solving a problem or developing a product (Winum & Seamons, 2000). There
are several different types of teams that can exist, depending upon their influence on each
other and their goals. These types include functional teams (specialized jobs or having
similar functions), cross-functional (representative from each functional subunit), self-
managed (semiautonomous or self-governed with similar operational tasks), self-defining
(responsibilities shared among team members and all decisions made collectively), and
executive (Yukl, 2002). Depending upon the objectives of the group, members can be
selected accordingly. In addition, participants can be chosen based upon the personal
characteristics that they bring to the group (Zastrow, 2001).
How work is performed in organizations is shifting from an individual focus to
emphasis on teams. Positive team functioning has been linked to increased team
effectiveness (Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi & Beubien, 2002). Team performance is an
integrated concept requiring examination of many aspects of those involved from the
individual, group, and organizational perspective. Because team performance involves
the interaction of people, the study of social dynamics is important. Social psychology
studies how individuals think, feel, and behave in regards to other people (Brehm,
Kassin, & Fein, 2005). Many aspects studied in social psychology are relevant in
17
examination of team performance. Elements of the self, team, and leader affect team
performance and success in reaching team goals. Participation in the team is affected by
an individual’s self-concept, including self-esteem and self-efficacy. Individuals will
behave in a team situation in certain ways based upon their perceptions of themselves and
how they think the team perceives them. Social identity theory supports the notion that
people will be motivated in a team to increase their self-esteem and categorize
themselves as part of the team in order to boost feelings of self identity (Chattopadhyay,
George, & Lawrence, 2004). Other individual beliefs, such as stereotypes, impact team
performance in numerous ways. Stereotypes and belief systems distort an individual’s
ability to communicate effectively and participate in the team in a positive manner.
Individuals can have the natural tendency to seek out information which confirms their
personal biases and stereotypes (Brehm et al., 2005).
Beyond individual behavior influencing team performance, the team as a whole will
have various aspects of social behavior which will impact its effectiveness. A variety of
models have been developed trying to explain how group characteristics influence team
effectiveness. Examining relationships longitudinally provides useful insight as to which
characteristics emerge as relevant. One model focuses on four group characteristics
including functional heterogeneity (group member’s perceptions about the diversity of
various functional experiences and skills held by other group members), preference for
group work (group member’s degree of feeling comfortable and enjoying working
collectively, as opposed to individually), group potency (collective belief in a group), and
outcome expectations (beliefs that group members have regarding the likely
consequences the group will experience as a result of their actions) (Jung, Sosik, & Baik,
18
2002). These characteristics, because they are a result of studying personnel over time,
have been noted to be variable. Characteristics are likely to fluctuate as the team
performs multiple tasks as opposed to other variables which tend to stay constant (e.g.,
group structure, planning processes, etc.) (Jung et al., 2002).
Individual team members influence the performance of the team through various
social dynamics. Member diversity is the first dynamic that comes to mind.
Organizations are increasingly seeing more diverse populations, and such diversities have
shown to be both positive and negative predictors of team performance (Sundstrom et al.,
2000). Many researchers have recognized that organizational performance depends in
some part on successful utilization of diverse backgrounds and characteristics that group
members possess (Jung, et al., 2002). Diversity refers to differences between individuals
on any attribute that may lead to perceptions that another person is different than
themselves (Van Knippenberg, DeDreu, & Homan, 2004). Diversity can range from age,
religion, race, skill level, etc.
Over the years, organizations are becoming more diverse in terms of their
demographic composition. In addition, cross-functional teams are becoming more
commonplace in organizations. Culturally-diverse work groups are known to have
different dynamics than homogeneous groups and are seen as having increased
challenges as well as opportunities. Team performance can be enhanced in the wake of
diversity with focused initiatives. Organizations must learn to obtain the most by having
a diverse work team in terms of ideas and values.
Along with taking advantage of differences, team cohesion is another social dynamic
which impacts team performance. Cohesion includes those forces on a group which push
19
members closer together (Brehm et al., 2004). Variables used to measure cohesion in
research surrounding group performance included the following (Beal, Cohen, Burke, &
McLendon, 2003): (a) interpersonal attraction (a shared liking for or attachment to the
group members), (b) task commitment (how much a task allows the group to attain
important goals or how much shared commitment there is to the group’s task), and (c)
group pride (the extent group members show liking for the status or ideologies that the
group represents).
When cohesion is strong, the group 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 members (Brehm et al., 2005).
Performance has also shown to be related to certain types of groups, too. For
example, cohesion has been shown to be a predictor in project teams, but not service
teams (Sundstrom 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). Having an appreciation for cohesiveness and its positive and negative effects can
help team performance adapt appropriately
Sometimes, teams can exaggerate their influences too much in one direction or
another, and the result is overall team performance suffers. Team polarization can lead to
extreme attitudes as a result of team members’ strongly persuasive stances (Brehm et al.,
20
2005). The optimal solution for organizations is to minimize the effects of such
tendencies and still allow members to feel free to communicate their opinions openly.
Overall, then, what makes teamwork “work”? The RHR Team Effectiveness Model
refers to the interaction of key elements contributing to effective team performance, of
which, includes the essential element of interpersonal processes (Winum & Seamons,
2000). Teams are viewed as a complex social system with many potential barriers for its
effective functioning. With a foundation in the field of social psychology, the RHR
Team Effectiveness Model includes interpersonal processes as an important element and
emphasizes that such processes are an interactive dynamic impacting the synergy and
constructive functioning of a team as a whole (Winum & Seamons, 2000). Interpersonal
processes are facilitated by communication.
Therefore, the study of communication and the impact of different communication
methods are important for successful interpersonal processes to exist. Having an
appreciation for the interpersonal processes is important for team effectiveness in relation
to its organizational context, and this is as important for not only co-located team
environments but also distributed team environments as well.
Research on Computer-Mediated Distributed Teams
Advantages of Computer-Mediated Communication
In the not too distant past, “virtual teams” (distributed teams using computers to
mediate communication) was considered a “novelty phrase” in organizations without
much focus on the implication of their use or utilization within an organization (Bergiel,
Biergel, & Balsmeir, 2008). These types of teams are not considered novelty anymore,
but are very commonplace. Teams using computer-mediated communication could be
21
considered an expansion of a traditional cross-functional team to include additional
elements spanning functional, organizational, and geographic boundaries. Because of
their increased use just within the past decade alone, it is important to understand the
issues inherent with computer-mediated communication as compared to traditional face-
to-face team interactions. Organizations depend on such teams to be agile and globally
competitive (Bergiel et al., 2008). However, studies comparing the effectiveness of
communication for computer-mediated communication teams as compared to face-to-
face teams have been mixed and ambiguous (Thatcher & DeLaCour, 2003). Results have
demonstrated many disadvantages and advantages that have been found associated with
computer-mediated communication teams.
As stated, distributed (or virtual) teams are separated by geographic and/or temporal
constraints. Distributed teams are often defined by multiple dimensions typically seen in
traditional teams. These include whether the team is permanent or temporary, the team
has or does not have history or a future of working with each other, the team is similar or
diverse in culture geography (Jarvepaa & Leidner, 1999). However, the distributed team
also has an added dimension of communication mode which can be one method or a
mixture of methods.
Organizations view distributed teams as assets for various reasons. Because of their
separation, they can bring together members from different areas of an organization.
They can communicate whenever and wherever they desire. Organizations consider
distributed teams best equipped to leverage experts without the constraints of co-location.
However, without physical proximity, the interpersonal processes occurring between
22
distributed team members are prone to problems (to be discussed in the subsequent
section).
There are some benefits seen with computer-mediated teams in terms of social
interaction. Interaction of distributed team members through computer-mediated
communications permits more equal participation among group members and reduces
social constraints that can result in better idea generation. McGuire et al. (1987) showed
that groups that use computer technology for communication are less influenced by group
norms than face-to-face teams. Computer-mediated communication can break down
boundaries such as nationality, race, language and ideology (Postmes, Spears, & Lea,
2002). Individual differences in terms of social status are usually unknown. Individuals
may be more inclined to communicate differently than if they would in a face-to-face
interaction. Computer-mediated communication can increase group decision-making
quality by allowing facilitation of the expression of minority opinions (McLeod, Baron,
Marti, & Yoon, 1997). Anonymity of computer-mediated communication can reduce
inhibition associated with social apprehension and social status differences (McLeod et
al., 1997). It leads to more active and equal team member participation (Berry, 2006).
Social anonymity opens an opportunity for more intense communications and can impact
a member’s group identity (Stone & Posey, 2005).
There is no doubt that there is a definite synergy that develops within a group during
a decision-making process. People read off of one another and learn from their
interactions. One of the disadvantages of face-to-face groups is the possibility one or
more members dominating the group’s activities (Thatcher & DeLaCour, 2003).
However, computer-mediated communication seems to encourage individual
23
participation by allowing a team member to openly broadcast personal opinion (Bishop &
Levine, 1999). Computer-mediated communication also offers the ability for team
members to reflect upon their responses as well as provide them time to collect additional
information prior to responding (Berry, 2006).
Idea generation has been found to be enhanced through electronic media. Computer-
mediated teams generate more ideas through brainstorming electronically versus face-to-
face settings (Kerr & Murthy, 2004). It has been noted that there are three advantages to
electronic brainstorming including: parallelism (members can contribute simultaneously),
group memory (medium enables ideas to be documented exactly as communicated), and
anonymity (sometimes ideas can be placed in a pool where individual identity can be
hidden) (Dennis & Valacich, 1993). Depending upon the tasks associated with
brainstorming in this medium, the effectiveness of computer-mediated team decisions can
more optimally reached.
Dennis and Valacich (1993) note some discovered advantages of electronic
brainstorming including the ability to work simultaneously, recording of group dialogue,
and allowing members to feel anonymous and freer to express themselves. It was also
hypothesized that large electronic-brainstorming groups would generate more ideas than
nominal groups, but that there would be little difference for smaller groups. Dennis and
Valacich (1993) compared the number of unique ideas between computer-mediated
communication and traditional face-to-face groups, as well as between small (six-
member) and large (twelve-member) groups. The researchers found that twelve-member
computer-mediated communication groups generated more ideas than twelve-member
24
face-to-face groups, while there were no differences between six-member groups (Dennis
& Valacich, 1993).
The findings of Dennis and Valacich (1993) are important because they dispel the
belief that electronic media is not an effective vehicle for teams. It does lend support that
depending on the type of task, for example idea-generation, a computer-mediated
communication team can be as or more productive than a traditional face-to-face team.
With face-to-face interactions, there is more likelihood that idea generation may be
hindered because of feelings of judgment. As Dennis and Valacich (1993) prove in their
results, smaller six-member face-to-face teams indicated more apprehension than any
other group. The study also suggests that group size is not necessarily a limiting factor
for computer-mediated teams (Dennis & Valacich, 1993). Obviously, there are critical
numbers of members before the returns of performance are minimized. Dennis and
Valacich (1993) admit if a more heterogeneous group of subjects were used, member’s
experiences, responsibilities, expectations, and other factors would more than likely show
different results such as more synergy with smaller group sizes.
Disadvantages of Computer-Mediated Communication
Distributed teams are faced with the challenges of managing conflict coming from
different boundaries or locations. Problems typically faced by teams causing conflict
include low organizational commitment, role ambiguity, and lack of team identification.
It is important for members to be aware of each other and to be able to perceive
themselves as a cohesive unit in decision-making (Thatcher & DeLaCour, 2003).
Researchers have found that such problems are exacerbated in the context of virtual
teams (Maruping & Agarwal, 2004). Virtual team members may feel isolated and
25
missing a team identity. This could be due to the lack of expertise and knowledge about
the technology and its use. According to some researchers (Bergiel et al., 2008), self-
reported computer savvy team members may not have sufficient knowledge to meet the
demands with the virtual team.
The establishment of mutual knowledge among members of computer-mediated
teams is susceptible to confusion due to the nature of comparing written to oral
communication. Lacking mutual knowledge in a team environment can also lead to
dissatisfaction with the processes and outcomes associated with the team. Satisfaction,
however, can be a broadly-defined term. Satisfaction can include a multitude of areas
including with the discussion, process, communication medium, and other members of
the group (Thompson & Coovert, 2003).
Literature suggests that computer-mediated teams are vulnerable to communication
and coordination difficulties, particularly when their work involves a good deal of
interdependence (Thompson & Coovert, 2003). Thompson & Coovert’s (2003) main
argument in their research was that the mutual knowledge gained through personal face-
to-face team interaction is assumed to be lacking in computer-mediated teams. The
researchers examined specific variables including perceived discussion confusion,
process satisfaction, and decision recording accuracy. In addition, they also examined
the relationship among communication medium, team discussion time, and outcome
satisfaction.
The results of Thompson and Coovert’s (2003) study showed that computer-
mediated teams felt more dissatisfied with their collaborative processes and less satisfied
with the outcome of the team exercise (Thompson & Coovert, 2003). Their research
26
confirmed that the lack of mutual knowledge in existence with computer-mediated teams
is evidenced by feelings of confusion, lack of satisfaction in the process and outcomes of
the team collaborations, as well as inaccuracies in recording the team information.
In another research study of computer-mediated teams, Straus and McGrath (1994)
hypothesized that as the need for member coordination on tasks increases, there will be
greater differences in product quality between computer-mediated and face-to-face teams.
Also, differences between computer-mediated and face-to-face groups in product quality
will be smaller for idea-generation tasks and greater for intellective and judgment tasks.
Straus and McGrath (1994) performed a repeated measures multivariate analysis of
variance for medium and task. In terms of performance effectiveness, they found
significant difference for medium and task type with the greatest difference seen among
them on the judgment task (Straus & McGrath, 1994). Analysis of productivity scores
showed a difference among medium with computer-mediated groups demonstrating
significantly less productivity (Straus & McGrath, 1994). Examination of quality showed
positive results for computer-mediated groups. There were no significant differences
between computer-mediated and face-to-face groups on any of the tasks. For instance,
there was no difference between them on idea quality, proportion of correct answers,
overall decision quality, and distribution of choices (Straus & McGrath, 1994).
With differences seen in satisfaction for judgment and intellective tasks as compared
to idea-generation tasks, Straus and McGrath (1994) concluded that as tasks require more
and more coordination and consensus, computer-mediated communication is viewed as a
less-than-suitable means of coordination. The results of this study confirm results seen
from other studies looking at computer-mediated groups (Thompson & Coovert, 2001;
27
Dennis & Valacich, 1993) that members of these groups are less satisfied with their work
and the process and find they are more confused. It also confirms that computer-
mediated communication is better for some types of tasks (idea-generation) as opposed to
others (intellective and judgment).
When examining research comparing computer-mediated teams to face-to-face
teams, a common thread is the amount of social presence. Social presence is a major
factor for the communication issues faced by computer-mediated teams. In this medium,
there is a lack of direct physical presence between the communicators. Social presence
theory advocates that communication media should vary accordingly to the degree of
“social presence” or the feeling that communication is social, warm, personal and
sensitive (Thatcher & DeLaCour, 2003).
Computer-mediated communication is considered very low in social presence, while
face-to-face groups are considered just the opposite. Electronic media are seen to filter
out the cues provided by personal contact; therefore, face-to-face communications is
viewed as offering the highest degree of social presence followed by video, audio, and
then print (Galushkin, 2003). Social influence in group discussions is communicated
through verbal and “social context cues” (for example, seating position, body language,
etc.) (McGuire et al., 1987). The impact on team performance for computer-mediated
teams is that these elements of influence are removed and prevents the full exchange of
views and feedback.
Removal of social presence in computer-mediated communication groups has been
found to raise group polarization (Sia et al., 2002). In fact, group polarization is believed
to be raised is because of the feelings members have in being anonymous and the
28
restrictions of social cues (Sia et al., 2002). Uninhibited behavior can lead to more
extreme disagreements that can make the group ineffective in coming to consensus. It is
believed that with an appearance of providing a platform for “open voice,” computer-
mediated teams are more susceptible to conflicts and tensions (Bishop & Levine, 1999).
In contrast, there is a belief that when social presence is high (as with traditional face-to-
face communication), people are encouraged to treat each other as social beings with
feelings rather than objects (Sia et al., 2002). Reducing social presence can result in the
pursuit of self interests over group interests.
Theories Guiding Computer-Mediated Distributed Teams
There are several theories which provide the basis of studies concentrated on
computer-mediated teams. Given the unique and varied environment offered by
computer-mediated communications, these theories center upon aspects of task type and
relational issues in choosing the appropriate technology (Lim & Hung, 2008). Early
theories centered on the characteristics of media and their impact on the selection of
media. There are few theories addressing the role of interpersonal processes and the
impact of social influence.
Task-Technology Fit
The theory of task-technology fit is considered the only theory that addresses the link
between task requirements and technological functionalities (Maruping & Agarwal,
2004). Task-technology-fit theory provides guidance for team performance, so when
using computer-mediated communication, it is optimized by selecting the appropriate set
of tools matched to the requirements of the task (Kerr & Murthy, 2004; Zigurs &
Khazanchi, 2008). Tasks which differ based upon complexity (such as simple, problem,
29
decision, and judgment) are best matched to media with different levels of capability
(communication support, process structure, information processing) (Zigurs &
Khazanchi, 2008). Overall, it has been advocated that a successful computer-mediated
team is proficient in learning how to best utilize the medium that it has and the ability to
explore the creative use of different technologies (Colquitt, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, LePine, &
Sheppard, 2002).
While the majority of research has focused on choosing computer-mediated
communication versus a traditional in-person communication method, there has been
some research examining technology fit within the same computer-mediated method. For
example, there has been some assessment of selecting appropriate synchronous (video
conferencing) communication based upon the team’s task requirements. Nedelko (2007)
describes a matrix used to assign video conferencing (desktop or room-based) based upon
the number of sites connected as well as task type. This matrix considers the type of
technology (meaning the number of actual sites connected by conferencing software) in
order to perform different tasks. Multi-site (three or more) video conferencing is
considered best for routine problem solving or negotiations, while it is recommended for
more complex problem solving and data collection to use less number of sites (no more
than two) (Nedelko, 2007).
Media Richness Theory
Media rich theory also asserts that the selection of communication media should
match the features of a group’s task (Barkhi, Jocob, & Pirkul, 1999). Media Richness
Theory is considered a theory within the umbrella of Task-Technology Fit (Zigurs &
Khazanchi, 2008). Communication media vary in its ability to convey rich information
30
(such information includes communication that overcomes different frames of reference
as well as changes in understanding in a reasonable time) (Daft & Lengel, 1986).
Communication media can, therefore, be classified according to their level of “richness.”
Media that is more “rich” provides immediate feedback, multiple cues, and language
variety (Thatcher & DeLaCour, 2003; Kumar & Benbasat, 2002).
Application of this theory places different communication media into a hierarchy in
terms of its ability to transport complex information from sender to receiver (Jonas, Boos,
& Sassenberg, 2002). A way to conceptualize this theory is by placing the types of
communication media by a rating by its ability to enable feedback, cues, message
tailoring and emotions. Newberry (2001) organized media in such a manner and placed
more rich communications such as face-to-face, video conferencing, synchronous audio,
and text-chat on the side of “high” media rating for providing feedback. For providing
multiple cues, only face-to-face communication was deemed sufficient, while all forms of
technology mediated communication (synchronous audio, asynchronous audio, text-chat,
e-mail, and threaded discussions) were considered “low” media for their ability to convey
multiple cues (Newberry, 2001).
Media is deemed “rich” based upon the number of cues available. Communication
can vary allowing text, verbal and non-verbal cues. Visual cues are seen as necessary to
read reactions and obtain an understanding of the impact of certain behaviors (Thompson
& Coovert, 2003). The media methods considered less “rich” are not able to convey
messages across multiple channels. The three dimensions of media richness are:
interactivity, adaptability, and channel capacity (Kumar & Benbasat, 2002). However, it
is also important to understand that the focus of this theory should not be confused with
31
media characteristics, but rather the ability for information to change understanding
within a defined period of time (Kumar & Benbasat, 2002).
According to this theory, media type (face-to-face, video conferencing, etc.) should
be chosen that offers the greatest efficiency and opportunity for the communication to
occur accurately (Newberry, 2001). Looking at the tasks required for within a team
environment, tasks requiring a significant amount of coordination are considered to
require richer media or higher rating as indicated above. It is generally assumed and
advocated that face-to-face communication is a richer media than computer-mediated
(Barkhi et al., 1999). This assumption is clouded, however, with the introduction of
visually-based technologies allowing teams to communicate.
Because of the belief of being a less rich medium for communication, teams using
computer-mediated communication are recommended to spend more time “verbalizing”
information than face-to-face counterparts (Thompson & Coovert, 2003). For example,
meaning, in some computer-mediated communication methods (such as text-base) is
attempted to be conveyed through the use of symbols which may or may not prove
effective (Kumar & Benbasat, 2002). “Verbalization” can also be achieved by
mimicking real-time conversations across computer-generated mediums.
Media Synchronicity Theory
Media Synchronicity Theory is considered a more three-dimensional model
incorporating team functions, media capabilities, and communication processes (DeLuca
& Valacich, 2006). This theory centers on the ability of communication technology to
transmit social cues inherent within face-to-face interactions (Maruping & Agarwal,
2004). Synchronicity is equated to the level of interaction. With interaction as a
32
fundamental element, media synchronicity theory is actually an extension of media
richness theory. The theory takes into consideration that tasks are varied within a team
activity and have multiple levels of complexity. While Media Richness Theory views
tasks as whole events and would assign the media based on a holistic assessment, Media
Synchronicity looks at tasks as singular events.
The dimensions affecting communication as identified by the Media Synchronicity
Theory are (DeLuca & Valacich, 2006): immediacy of feedback, symbol variety or the
format which information is conveyed (verbal and non-verbal symbols), parallelism or
the number of effective simultaneous conversations, ability to rehearse or fine-tune a
message before sending, and ability to re-process or re-address a message within the
same communication.
By considering tasks as individual event, this theory poses that each task will vary by
the dimensions listed above and be impacted by the interaction associated among them.
Communication media influences task performance by the ability or inability of the
media to support the dimensions. The Media Synchronicity Theory suggests that no
media is good or bad consistently on all five dimensions and the effectiveness of the
media in supporting group interactions is dependent upon the tasks involved (Chang,
2005).
With increased focus on media and the impact of changing technologies, Media
Synchronicity Theory was revised to replace immediacy of feedback with transmission
velocity (Dennis, Fuller, & Valacich, 2008). With media transmitting in a faster mode,
synchronicity is increased as exchanges in communication can occur faster and come
close to appearing seamless.
33
Media Naturalness Theory
This theory proposes that an individual’s cognitive effort will increase when engaged
in a mode of communication that is different from that which is more natural (Simon,
2006). As a result, a method that is more natural, such as videoconferencing, can be
viewed as preferable requiring less cognitive effort. However, as with any technology,
videoconferencing has its problems with poor quality of video or delayed audio
transmission. The issue with Media Naturalness is that it focuses on media itself in its
capacity to convey information and neglects task differences as well as complexity of
social forces (Simon, 2006).
Some communication methods are deemed “quasi-synchronous.” This type of media
are sort of a live message board which allows members to simultaneously type in
responses that are displayed almost real time on a common message board. Some believe
that this type of media for teams is optimal. The communication develops as nonlinear
sequential patterns and causes discussions to appear disjointed (Distiller & Thatcher,
2005). Ensuring communication is effectively achieving positive results would seem
quite difficult by having non-sequential, multiple streams of discussions occurring.
Members would have to develop some way to track decisions or milestones from these
discussions.
Social Presence Theory
Social presence is a major factor for the communication issues faced by computer-
mediated teams. What is presence? This is a valid question given the range of
technologies available for communication. Presence, in terms of computer-mediated
communication, appears to revolve around perceptions and abilities to “feel” connected.
34
Kumar & Benbasat (2002) outline different conceptualizations of presence including:
social richness (the level of conceptualization a team member has dependent upon the
salience of social perceptions), realism (the degree that the communication medium
produces realistic representations of others or the environment), transportation (the
feeling of “being there” or “we are together”), immersion (the extent the medium and
environment envelopes a user both perceptually and psychologically), and social actor
within medium (the level of interaction allowed with a communication medium which
includes interaction, or the lack of, among users).
Social presence is part of a larger set of theories in social psychology which are
based upon the premises of basic human interaction. There is not only the significance of
the interaction among individuals, but the manner in which interactions are mediated.
For this to occur there must be a level of awareness of the other team member’s existence
and perceptions that they are truly interacting. A related construct to social presence is
called co-presence which is considered a sense of the being in a shared space (Jerome &
Jordan, 2007). While interaction can be facilitated through computer-mediated
technologies, the instinctual nature of human interaction is still a major factor. In fact,
some view the categories of “social actor within medium” and “medium as social actor:
as the most significant aspects related to virtual team projects (Lim & Hung, 2008).
The state of social presence and co-presence can vary over computer-mediated
communication from a low level of awareness that the other team member is co-present
to a high level of awareness that the other team member’s emotional states are accessible
(Biocca & Harms, 2002). In fact, social presence is considered to include graduated
levels perceptions and states of mind. Biocca and Harms (2002) considered social
35
presence from not only a perceptual level in broader terms, but also from a subjective and
inter-subjective level which took into consideration awareness within the individual as
well as dynamics amongst the group such as perceived comprehension, attention
engagement, and symmetry between members providing a sense of mutual presence.
In computer-mediated communications, the lack of direct physical presence
influences the level of co-presence felt. Social presence theory first put forth by Short,
Williams, and Christie (1976), advocates that social presence is the perception that one is
communicating with people and not inanimate objects. Social presence is considered one
of the most important factors that help people collaborate because it allows the team to
feel a sense of belonging and cohesion amongst themselves (Na Ubon & Kimble, 1997).
This definition is expanded to include media which defined social presence as the degree
a person perceives to be real in a mediated environment (Newberry, 2001). When social
presence is low, team members are believed to be disconnected and cohesion levels low,
but if social presence is high, they feel “joint involvement” (Kurzendoerfer, n. d.).
Yet, team members must be able to work together despite their physical separation,
and this is highly influenced by the work required of the team. Social presence theory
advocates that communication media should vary accordingly to the degree of social
presence needed by the team’s task (s) (Thatcher & DeLaCour, 2003; Kumar &
Benbasat, 2002). This theory also purports that the awareness and sensitivity of the
presence of other people is directly related to the number of communication accessibility
or modes (Liu, Tsang, Kwan, Ng, Cheung & Choy, 2007; Kurzendoerfer, n. d.). As the
number of communication restrictions decreases, the level of social presence is expected
36
to increase, while the number of restrictions can possibly increase and thus lessen the
ability to communicate, and cause a decrease in social presence.
Communication and social interaction conveyances vary. For example, social
influence in team discussions can be communicated through verbal and “social context
cues” (for example, seating position, body language, etc.) (McGuire et al., 1987). The
impact on team performance for computer-mediated teams is that these elements of
influence are removed or lessened and prevent optimal communication to occur (full
exchange of views and feedback). Social presence involves both the individual team
member sensing they perceive others and others are able to perceive them (Kumar &
Benbasat, 2002).
According to Social Presence Theory, the characteristics of media have the ability to
change the salience of each individual’s presence, and thus, have an impact on the
communication occurring in the group (Lim & Hung, 2008). It is a theory that purports
how technology can affect, distort, or enhance social cognitions and interactions (Biocca
& Harms, 2002). More visual (or synchronous) communications are seen to provide the
social and contextual cues necessary to develop a feeling of social presence. These
include having the ability to hear vocal fluctuations, see facial movements and even hear
surrounding sounds. Asynchronous (or text-based) communications are seen to lack the
ability to evoke feelings of social presence (Wheeler, 2005).
Social Presence and Team Development and Performance
There have been some limitations noted of applying Social Presence Theory on
computer-mediated teams since computer due to the reason that there are many levels of
“presence” allowed with computer-mediated communication (Lim & Hung, 2008). For
37
example, a text-based communication method has no social presence as compared to a
video-based communication method.
The performance demands of the team will play a significant role in terms of which
type of media to select for a distributed team. Task-technology fit could help predict a
team’s outcomes in terms of the degree the technology relates to the information-
processing and coordination needs of the tasks at hand (Maruping & Agarwal, 2002).
However, to compensate for missing social interaction and team building
experiences in the computer-mediated environment, it is suggested that organizations
provide at least some opportunity for computer-mediated teams to meet face-to-face at
particular stages of project development (Franz, 1999). Teams using technologies or
approaches high in media richness in the early stages of development enable trust among
team members to be developed (Maruping & Agarwal, 2002). In addition, when team
members face relationship conflicts or require some affect management, the need for
nonverbal cues and emotional content in the communications is greater (Maruping &
Agarwal, 2002). While media rich (video conferencing) or face-to-face meetings may
not be practical for every team communication effort, there should be opportunities for
some sort of “media-rich” interaction.
This topic leads to the research questions of this study. If provided an opportunity to
interact in a media-rich environment (synchronous video conferencing) for part of their
work together, do teams develop and perform as well as teams who meet initially by
other computer-mediated means (asynchronous or text-based communications)? Some
social presence is necessary to develop the perceptual salience of team members.
38
With most studies related to computer-mediated teams concentrating on differences
with face-to-face teams (Thompson & Coovert, 2003; Kerr & Murthy, 2004; Thatcher &
DeLaCour, 2005), there is limited research on comparisons between computer-mediated
teams. In addition, with the importance of social presence in establishing basically the
perceptual “glue” among its members, the introduction of visual interaction is also
important to examine for computer-mediated teams. Social presence as a measure,
however, is a difficult construct. It is considered having a lack of conceptual
standardization among researchers and a lack of agreement in terms of its measurement
(Jerome & Jordan, 2007). It can, however, be considered as part of the communication
variable (asynchronous versus synchronous). Characteristics of the communication
medium (in terms of stimuli, interactivity, and live interactions) are considered
determinants of presence (Jerome & Jordan, 2007). Therefore, presence in this study is
considered by the type of communication by its inclusion of visual connection, or lack
thereof, while its effect on team development and performance are measured.
39
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Study
Social presence or the lack thereof, is an important consideration for distributed
teams. The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a difference between
computer-mediated teams having social, or visual, presence compared to those that do not
in planning for a task. Is initial “presence” going to show higher development within a
team than those that do not have such interaction? With research supporting the fact that
social presence, as experienced in more traditional face-to-face teams, is essential in
developing an effective team environment (Thompson & Coovert, 2003), introducing
some form of social interaction to a computer-mediated team by means of synchronous
communication is hypothesized to result in higher team development than asynchronous
computer-mediated teams. Similarly, because of the introduction of a social presence,
asynchronous computer-mediated teams with initial synchronous exposure are expected
to have no change in development or performance over time.
Research Design
The design for this study involved quantitative analysis of the dependent variables
team development and performance as compared to the independent variable of team type
(computer-mediated communication accomplished either through asynchronous (text
chat) or synchronous (video) method). Because the research examined these dependent
variables in terms of the effects of two independent variables within the same team, the
study involved an experimental within-subjects design.
To simulate the Air Force’s distributed mission operation environment, teams were
asked to perform an exercise that involved both planning and task execution. In this
40
study, teams were given the Tall Ships™ exercise. In Tall Ships™, teams are asked to
assemble the tallest ship mast possible in the least amount of time (Task 1), and then
teams are assembled again rethink their strategy and build yet a taller mast in the same
amount of time, but at the lowest cost (Task 2) (Teambuildinginc.com, n. d.). Teams are
given up to fifteen minutes to develop a plan to complete each task.
Task planning was performed by either by computer-mediated asynchronous (via
text chat) or computer-mediated synchronous (via videoconferencing) communication
media. Task execution was accomplished either by computer-mediated synchronous (via
video conferencing) or traditional face-to-face interaction (within the same conference
room). All subjects were given an introduction to the communication software prior to
the start of the tasks.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions which vary by
communication method: (a) Team 1 participants plan task 1 asynchronously (via text
chat), plan Task 2 synchronously (via videoconferencing), and execute both tasks in a
face-to-face mode; (b) Team 2 participants plan Task 1 asynchronously (via text chat),
plan Task 2 synchronously (via videoconferencing), and execute both tasks in a
synchronous mode (via videoconferencing); (c) Team 3 participants plan Task 1
synchronously (via videoconferencing), plan Task 2 asynchronously (via text chat), and
execute both tasks in a face-to-face mode; or (d) Team 4 participants plan Task 1
synchronously (via videoconferencing), plan Task 2 asynchronously (via text chat), and
execute both tasks in a synchronous mode (via videoconferencing).
The design for this research study consisted of the administration of self-report
questionnaire after completion of planning exercises for each task. Since self-report data
41
relies on subjects telling researchers what they believe to be true, this approach will be
appropriate for obtaining team members’ perception (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). As
observation of multiple groups simultaneously would be difficult for this research, the
study took advantage of the ability to administer questionnaires to a larger group of
subjects at the same time (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). In addition to the questionnaire, the
measure for team performance was acquired through data collection of the time each
team took to complete each task, height of the ship’s mast, and cost of materials for both
Task 1 and Task 2. With four different types of teams and two tasks, the study design
was organized in the following manner (Figure 1 below):
Figure 1. Overall Study Design
Target Population and Participant Selection
In descriptive research such as this one, the goal is to describe a characteristic of a
large population (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). Because the target population comprises
military aircrew personnel in a computer-mediated team environment, it involves a very
SynchronousAsynchronousSynchronousSynchronous4
Face-to-FaceAsynchronousFace-to-FaceSynchronous3
SynchronousSynchronousSynchronousAsynchronous2
Face-to-FaceSynchronousFace-to-FaceAsynchronous1
ExecutePlanExecutePlan
Task 2Task 1Team
SynchronousAsynchronousSynchronousSynchronous4
Face-to-FaceAsynchronousFace-to-FaceSynchronous3
SynchronousSynchronousSynchronousAsynchronous2
Face-to-FaceSynchronousFace-to-FaceAsynchronous1
ExecutePlanExecutePlan
Task 2Task 1Team
TeamDevelopment
Survey
TeamDevelopment
Survey
TeamDevelopment
Survey
TeamDevelopment
Survey
PerformanceWorksheet
PerformanceWorksheet
PerformanceWorksheet
PerformanceWorksheet
42
diverse population spread across a multitude of geographic locations. The goal is to find
a sample of that possible population in order to make generalizations about the entire
population. Students represent a good a source for identifying a sample of a diverse
workforce, and are used in many computer-mediated research studies (Thatcher &
DeLaCour, 2003; Thompson & Coovert, 2003).
This study recruited students at a major mid-western university to participate in
multiple team exercises requiring communication coordination between its members. All
freshman students enrolled in an introductory behavioral sciences course were asked to
take part in the study. As this course is required for all freshman students, the sample of
subjects came from the entire freshman population for the spring and fall semesters. The
sampling strategy was a simple random design of students who volunteer to participate.
By using freshmen students, they will have had little opportunity for social interaction
prior to the study as freshman in this particular university are prohibited from wandering
around the campus and are also required to stay within the boundaries of their dormitory
outside of academic hours. There was also a control for internal validity during the study
itself by having the groups unaware of the different conditions for which they are
assigned.
The research design called for forming a number of groups per team condition. A
power analysis was performed to estimate the required sample sizes using the
assumptions that the Type II error rate set at β = 0.20 (power = 0.80) and Type I error rate
at α = 0.05. Estimations were achieved using different conventions as guides. Using
Cohen’s convention (Howell, 2004), an effect size meeting the “medium” level was
calculated to equal an n of 31 participants. Using a different convention to define
43
“medium” effect, the required n was 22 participants (Hinkle, Wiersman, & Jurs, 1994).
With similar psychological research studies using a medium effect size as standard, the
determination of a sample size of 24 participants per team condition (making 4 groups of
6-person teams) an acceptable sample determination (Keppel, 1991). Thus, a minimum
of 96 participants was needed.
Procedures
The research was submitted to the Capella University Human Subjects Institutional
Review Board with all supporting documentation following submission to the mid-
western university’s Institutional Review Board. Once permission was granted from the
two boards, a complete list of students enrolled in randomly selected programs were
obtained. Students were informed of the study as an extra credit opportunity. Sign-up
sheets were posted in the Psychology Department hallways which indicated the date and
time students volunteered to attend the study. Students who came to participate in the
study were asked to stay the entire duration of the exercise as well as participate in the
survey administration period.
For asynchronous communication, team members were placed in assigned office
spaces with computers. Synchronous team members were located in rooms with
computers equipped with teleconference/tele-presence software to allow them to video
conference with each other. All subjects were provided an introduction to the Microsoft
NetMeeting software prior to the start of the session. Subjects were asked to reply to
some example messages using the text chat software so that they are familiar with the
manner messages are sent and received. Subjects were also shown the video conference
44
software and asked to communicate a few minutes with the study administrators to
become familiar with the placement of the video camera and software itself.
Once the study was started, the teams were asked to plan and execute two separate
tasks. At the end of the planning exercises, the Campbell-Hallam Team Development
Survey was administered to each member (Attachment A). Participants individually
completed their questionnaire and were verbally assured of the confidentiality of their
responses. An instruction sheet was read to all participants prior to distributing the
questionnaire. Once completed, subjects enclosed their questionnaire in a sealed
envelope. Teams were then asked to execute the plan developed. This procedure was
repeated for a second task (planning and execution).
Measures
Independent variables for this analysis include type of team
(synchronous/asynchronous and asynchronous/synchronous planning teams). Dependent
variables include the categories of team development and task performance. The
questionnaire used in this research to assess team development was a version of the
Campbell-Hallam Team Development Survey which is originally based on 18 scales, and
of which, this study included questions from five of those including mission clarity,
group cohesion, group behavior, skill development, personal satisfaction (Leong &
Lewis, 1994). The constructs are defined as follows: mission clarity is the extent goals
and mission of the team are clearly defined, cohesion is the attraction of members to the
team, group behavior represents the individual behaviors which influence the group
dynamics as a whole, skill development is the individual team member’s own learning
during the team process, and personal satisfaction stands for team member attitudes
45
towards the team working experience (Xue, Sankar, & Mbarika, 2005). The version of
the Team Development Survey used for this study was an adapted version as used in
previous virtual team research (Xue et al., 2005).
The Team Development Survey is seen as a structured instrument to gather
characteristics “necessary for the effective functioning of work groups” and can be used
with different types of teams such as those developed on an ad hoc basis as well as cross-
functional teams (Nelson, 2003). This instrument is also useful in that it measure many
areas at one in terms of the individual team member’s experience. Campbell and Hallam
(1994) report the Team Development Survey is reliable with internal consistency
(Cronbach’s alpha 0.69 and test-retest reliability median correlation of r=0.80 (ranging
0.69-0.90). Questions on the survey are to be evaluated on a 5-point scale from “1”
(strongly disagree) to “5” (strongly agree) (Xue et al., 2005). Xue et al. (2005) assessed
the reliability of the constructs of the Team Development Survey used and found
acceptable reliability with measurements of Cronbach’s alpha above 0.7.
Task performance was measured by height of the structure (measured in inches
through use of a tape measure) and time to plan and execute completion of the structure
(measured in seconds by using a standard stopwatch). Cost was also determined using a
material cost worksheet (Attachment B). Each piece of the materials given to complete
the task is color-coded that varies by size and shape. The worksheet provides a cost list
of items by the different colors. Total cost of the mast created will be determined by the
sum of the pieces used. Task performance data were recorded in table format for each
team (Attachment C).
46
Re-Statement of Research Hypotheses
As stated earlier, the hypotheses are organized into four areas related to the research
questions and research design. These areas and associated hypotheses are:
Synchronous versus Asynchronous Teams: Hypotheses 1 and 2
Hypothesis 1: For Task 1, teams using asynchronous planning have statistically
significant lower team development, as measured by the Team Development Survey,
compared to teams that plan synchronously (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Study Design – Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2: For Task 1, teams using asynchronous planning have statistically
significant lower performance, compared to teams that plan synchronously (see Figure 3).
SynchronousAsynchronousSynchronousSynchronous4
Face-to-FaceAsynchronousFace-to-FaceSynchronous3
SynchronousSynchronousSynchronousAsynchronous2
Face-to-FaceSynchronousFace-to-FaceAsynchronous1
ExecutePlanExecutePlan
Task 2Task 1Team
SynchronousAsynchronousSynchronousSynchronous4
Face-to-FaceAsynchronousFace-to-FaceSynchronous3
SynchronousSynchronousSynchronousAsynchronous2
Face-to-FaceSynchronousFace-to-FaceAsynchronous1
ExecutePlanExecutePlan
Task 2Task 1Team
TeamDevelopment
Survey
TeamDevelopment
Survey
H1
47
Figure 3. Study Design – Hypothesis 2
Changing from Asynchronous to Synchronous Teams: Hypotheses 3 and 4
Hypothesis 3: Teams that plan Task 1 asynchronously and plan Task 2
synchronously have statistically significant higher team development, as measured by the
Team Development Survey, for Task 2 (see Figure 4 below).
Figure 4. Study Design – Hypothesis 3
SynchronousAsynchronousSynchronousSynchronous4
Face-to-FaceAsynchronousFace-to-FaceSynchronous3
SynchronousSynchronousSynchronousAsynchronous2
Face-to-FaceSynchronousFace-to-FaceAsynchronous1
ExecutePlanExecutePlan
Task 2Task 1Team
SynchronousAsynchronousSynchronousSynchronous4
Face-to-FaceAsynchronousFace-to-FaceSynchronous3
SynchronousSynchronousSynchronousAsynchronous2
Face-to-FaceSynchronousFace-to-FaceAsynchronous1
ExecutePlanExecutePlan
Task 2Task 1Team
H3
TeamDevelopment
Survey
TeamDevelopment
Survey
TeamDevelopment
Survey
TeamDevelopment
Survey
SynchronousAsynchronousSynchronousSynchronous4
Face-to-FaceAsynchronousFace-to-FaceSynchronous3
SynchronousSynchronousSynchronousAsynchronous2
Face-to-FaceSynchronousFace-to-FaceAsynchronous1
ExecutePlanExecutePlan
Task 2Task 1Team
SynchronousAsynchronousSynchronousSynchronous4
Face-to-FaceAsynchronousFace-to-FaceSynchronous3
SynchronousSynchronousSynchronousAsynchronous2
Face-to-FaceSynchronousFace-to-FaceAsynchronous1
ExecutePlanExecutePlan
Task 2Task 1Team
PerformanceWorksheet
PerformanceWorksheet
H2
48
Hypothesis 4: Teams that plan Task 1 asynchronously and plan Task 2
synchronously have statistically significant higher performance for Task 2 (see Figure 5
below).
Figure 5. Study Design – Hypothesis 4
Changing from Synchronous to Asynchronous Teams: Hypotheses 5 and 6
Hypothesis 5: Teams that plan Task 1 synchronously and plan Task 2
asynchronously have statistically significant lower team development, as measured by the
Team Development Survey, for Task 2 (see Figure 6 below).
Figure 6. Study Design – Hypothesis 5
SynchronousAsynchronousSynchronousSynchronous4
Face-to-FaceAsynchronousFace-to-FaceSynchronous3
SynchronousSynchronousSynchronousAsynchronous2
Face-to-FaceSynchronousFace-to-FaceAsynchronous1
ExecutePlanExecutePlan
Task 2Task 1Team
SynchronousAsynchronousSynchronousSynchronous4
Face-to-FaceAsynchronousFace-to-FaceSynchronous3
SynchronousSynchronousSynchronousAsynchronous2
Face-to-FaceSynchronousFace-to-FaceAsynchronous1
ExecutePlanExecutePlan
Task 2Task 1Team
H4
PerformanceWorksheet
PerformanceWorksheet
PerformanceWorksheet
PerformanceWorksheet
SynchronousAsynchronousSynchronousSynchronous4
Face-to-FaceAsynchronousFace-to-FaceSynchronous3
SynchronousSynchronousSynchronousAsynchronous2
Face-to-FaceSynchronousFace-to-FaceAsynchronous1
ExecutePlanExecutePlan
Task 2Task 1Team
SynchronousAsynchronousSynchronousSynchronous4
Face-to-FaceAsynchronousFace-to-FaceSynchronous3
SynchronousSynchronousSynchronousAsynchronous2
Face-to-FaceSynchronousFace-to-FaceAsynchronous1
ExecutePlanExecutePlan
Task 2Task 1Team
H5
TeamDevelopment
Survey
TeamDevelopment
Survey
TeamDevelopment
Survey
TeamDevelopment
Survey
49
Hypothesis 6: Teams that plan Task 1 synchronously and plan Task 2
asynchronously have statistically significant lower performance for Task 2 (see Figure 7
below).
Figure 7. Study Design – Hypothesis 6
Synchronous versus Face-to-Face Team Performance: Hypothesis 7
Hypothesis 7: Teams that execute Task 1 and Task 2 face-to-face have statistically
significant higher performance as compared to teams that execute tasks synchronously
(see Figure 8 below).
Figure 8. Study Design – Hypothesis 7
SynchronousAsynchronousSynchronousSynchronous4
Face-to-FaceAsynchronousFace-to-FaceSynchronous3
SynchronousSynchronousSynchronousAsynchronous2
Face-to-FaceSynchronousFace-to-FaceAsynchronous1
ExecutePlanExecutePlan
Task 2Task 1Team
SynchronousAsynchronousSynchronousSynchronous4
Face-to-FaceAsynchronousFace-to-FaceSynchronous3
SynchronousSynchronousSynchronousAsynchronous2
Face-to-FaceSynchronousFace-to-FaceAsynchronous1
ExecutePlanExecutePlan
Task 2Task 1Team
H7
PerformanceWorksheet
PerformanceWorksheet
PerformanceWorksheet
PerformanceWorksheet
SynchronousAsynchronousSynchronousSynchronous4
Face-to-FaceAsynchronousFace-to-FaceSynchronous3
SynchronousSynchronousSynchronousAsynchronous2
Face-to-FaceSynchronousFace-to-FaceAsynchronous1
ExecutePlanExecutePlan
Task 2Task 1Team
SynchronousAsynchronousSynchronousSynchronous4
Face-to-FaceAsynchronousFace-to-FaceSynchronous3
SynchronousSynchronousSynchronousAsynchronous2
Face-to-FaceSynchronousFace-to-FaceAsynchronous1
ExecutePlanExecutePlan
Task 2Task 1Team
H6
PerformanceWorksheet
PerformanceWorksheet
PerformanceWorksheet
PerformanceWorksheet
50
Expected Findings
There were several findings expected from this research study. Because of the
supporting literature demonstrating the lack of social presence and visual cues associated
with traditional face-to-face (or more social team interactions), asynchronous computer-
mediated team members were expected to not show higher team development measures
as compared to synchronous teams. However, it was also anticipated that teams planning
for the first time asynchronously would see higher levels of team development and task
performance in the second task exercise they perform because they are communicating
synchronously with a more media “rich” communication media. In addition, teams that
have synchronous interaction in the first exercise and asynchronous interaction later were
expected to demonstrate no difference in performance in terms of task measures due to
their initial social interaction (thus, accepting the null hypothesis).
Finally, in terms of task execution, the teams that plan using similar methods
(asynchronous/synchronous and synchronous/asynchronous) are also varied by the task
performance communication method (synchronous versus face-to-face). With social
presence available for the synchronous task execution teams, there was not expected to be
a difference between teams using synchronous or face-to-face methods in task
performance (again, accepting the null hypothesis).
The measures of team development showing low agreement with computer-mediated
team members will permit the development of performance interventions either in the
mode of new technologies or group behavior. The findings will add significant
understanding to the current studies focused on computer-mediated teams and lead to
51
additional research focused on exploring the relationship of performance and computer-
mediated teams as well as methods to improve it.
The findings of this research study are anticipated to be of great importance to
different types of organizational virtual teams as well as educational teams. The results
will help teams understand what impacts their performance. In reference to the team
effectiveness model presented earlier, the importance of interpersonal processes is an
essential piece contributing to the effectiveness of team development and performance.
The dynamics associated with teams arriving at decisions affects the overall culture of the
team and motivates individuals to feel as part of the team and for the team to perform as a
collective unit.
52
CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSES AND RESULTS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences between teams which
communicate using forms of computer-mediated communication. Computer-mediated
teams are known to be less effective working with each other (Thatcher & DeLaCour,
2003; Thompson & Coovert, 2003). Social presence or the lack thereof, is an important
variable to consider in using computer-mediated communication and evaluating its
impact on the team (Sia et al., 2002; Maruping & Agarwal, 2004). With the introduction
of new technologies, computer-mediated communication will vary by its degree of social
presence (synchronous forms such as teleconferencing versus asynchronous forms such
as e-mail). It is uncertain whether initial use of more “social presence” technologies
(such as synchronous video communication) is warranted for team development and
performance. Some early interaction of team members that provide social interaction
may be sufficient in establishing the development teams and impact their performance
and allow subsequent interactions with different methods of communication. This study
compared computer-mediated teams in terms of specific variables such as team
development and performance and considered the different choices of communication
(with varying amount of social presence) in the planning and execution of team tasks.
This study used a quantitative research design involving the analysis of the
dependent variables team development and performance as compared to the independent
variable of team type (using asynchronous (text chat) or synchronous (video) computer-
mediated communication method). Because the research examined dependent variables
in terms of the effects of two independent variables within the same team, the study
53
involved an experimental with-subjects design. To simulate the Air Force’s distributed
mission operation environment, teams were asked to perform an exercise that involves
both planning and task execution. In this study, teams were given the Tall Ships™
exercise. In Tall Ships™, teams were tasked to assemble the tallest ship mast possible in
the time given (Task 1), and then teams were assembled again build a taller mast (Task 2)
(Teambuildinginc.com, n. d.).
Description of Sample
The subjects for this study consisted of students enrolled in a beginner Psychology
class at a major mid-western university. A total of 99 students volunteered and
successfully participated in the study. There were 92 male subjects (92.9%) and 7 female
subjects (7.1%). All subjects were freshman students and ranged in age from 18-19
years. There were a total of 19 teams formed. Table 1 below provides a distribution of
the number of teams by team type (conditions which the teams varied).
Table 1.
Distribution of Team Type
Team
Type
Task 1 Task 2 # of
Teams Plan Execute Plan Execute
1 Asynchronous Face-to-Face Synchronous Face-to-Face 6
2 Asynchronous Synchronous Synchronous Synchronous 5
3 Synchronous Face-to-Face Asynchronous Face-to-Face 4
4 Synchronous Synchronous Asynchronous Synchronous 4
Total 19
54
Data Analysis
For the analyses, team development is understood in context of the items from the
Team Development Survey (which include areas of mission clarity, group cohesion,
group behavior, skill development, and personal satisfaction). Task performance was
assessed in terms of time to plan, time to execute task, cost as well as height of mast.
There were seven relevant hypotheses for this study. These hypotheses centered on
the measures of team development and performance either after performance of one task
or over two tasks. For the analyses, team development was understood in context of the
thirteen items modified from the Team Development Survey. Task performance was
assessed in terms of time to plan and complete the task as well as success of task
completion (height of mast or cost).
The Team Development Survey was administered after completion of planning for
Task 1 and again after planning for Task 2. Figures 9 and 10 show the distributions of
the responses (scale 1 to 5; 1= strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) for items 1-13 on
the Team Development Survey after Task 1 and Task 2.
While Campbell and Hallam (1994) reported that the Team Development Survey is
reliable (Cronbach’s alpha 0.69), reliability was also calculated using this study’s results.
The version of the Team Development Survey used for this research was an adapted
version used in previous virtual team research (Xue et al., 2005).
55
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
T1Q1
T1Q2
T1Q3
T1Q4
T1Q5
T1Q6
T1Q7
T1Q8
T1Q9
T1Q10
T1Q11
T1Q12
T1Q13
% o
f R
esp
on
ses
R5
R4
R3
R2
R1
Figure 9. Distribution of Team Development Survey Responses- Task 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
T2Q1
T2Q2
T2Q3
T2Q4
T2Q5
T2Q6
T2Q7
T2Q8
T2Q9
T2Q10
T2Q11
T2Q12
T2Q13
% o
f R
esp
on
ses
R5
R4
R3
R2
R1
Figure 10. Distribution of Team Development Survey Responses- Task 2
Table 2 shows the Cronbach’s alpha values for the Team Development Survey
administered after Task 1 and after Task 2. According to most professionals, a reliability
of 0.70 or higher is considered acceptable (Wikia.com. n. d.)
56
Table 2.
Cronbach’s Alpha for Task 1 and Task 2
Team Development Survey Cronbach’s Alpha
Task 1 0.792
Task 2 0.835
Analysis of survey items comprised of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
providing an indication of the significant differences between the Team Development
Survey ratings between computer-mediated teams (asynchronous/synchronous and
synchronous/asynchronous). Significance F values provided evidence of between group
variability with significance statistically (p<.05). A level of significance less than 0.05
were interpreted to mean that there was a significant difference between means of the
groups compared in the analysis. If the level of significance was equal to or greater than
0.05, there was no evidence of statistical difference between means. Data were analyzed
using the Statistical Program for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 14.0 for Windows.
Data Analyses - Synchronous versus Asynchronous Teams: Hypotheses 1 and 2
Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1 states: For Task 1, teams using asynchronous planning
have statistically significant lower team development, as measured by the Team
Development Survey, compared to teams that plan synchronously. The independent
variable in this analysis is the team type. This hypothesis directly compares teams who
plan asynchronously to teams that plan synchronously. Teams 1 and 2 planned Task 1
asynchronously, while Teams 3 and 4 planned Task 1 synchronously. Each item of the
57
Team Development Survey was analyzed as dependent variable. The mean, standard
deviation, F statistic, and significance value are provided in Table 3.
Significant differences were found between asynchronous and synchronous teams for
four items on the survey. Overall, while differences were found, the findings do not
support the hypothesis as three of the four item means for asynchronous teams were
higher than synchronous. The only item showing significant difference where the mean
response for synchronous teams (3.02) was higher than asynchronous teams (2.55)
actually stated that teams members “would rather join a different computer-mediated
team.”
Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 states: For Task 1, teams using asynchronous planning
have statistically significant lower performance, compared to teams that plan
synchronously. The hypothesis examines the same two types of teams as Hypothesis 1,
but looks at how teams differ in task performance. The independent variable in this
analysis is the team type. Again, Team 1 and 2 planned Task 1 asynchronously, while
Teams 3 and 4 planned Task 1 synchronously. Teams were assessed in terms of planning
time, execution time, height, and cost which were analyzed as dependent variables. The
mean, standard deviation, F statistic, and significance value are provided in Table 4.
58
Table 3.
Results in Team Development – Hypothesis 1
Item Item Descriptor
Asynchronous Synchronous
F-value Sig Mean SD Mean SD
1 Team members can easily understand the mission of the team.
4.42 0.786 4.09 0.858 3.960 .051
2 It is easy for team members
to understand the purpose of each meeting.
3.31 1.103 3.48 0.952 0.640 .426
3 I felt I was really part of our
team. 3.62 1.045 3.61 0.970 0.000 .982
4
If I had to do the same work again in a computer-mediated team, I would rather stay in the same team.
3.84 0.977 3.32 1.052 6.426 .013*
5
If I had to do the same work again, I would rather join a different computer-mediated team.
2.55 1.184 3.02 0.952 4.712 .032*
6 Team members were open
and frank in expressing their ideas and feelings.
4.25 0.775 3.86 1.002 4.792 0.031*
7 Team members were
committed to the goals and objectives of the team.
4.38 0.805 4.09 0.936 2.763 0.100
8
Team members recognized and respected individual differences and contributions during the exercise.
4.24 0.769 3.95 0.987 2.550 0.114
9 I improved my technical
ability through this exercise. 3.20 0.951 2.91 0.910 2.376 0.126
10 I improved my teamwork
ability through this exercise. 3.27 0.891 3.41 0.787 0.634 0.428
11 I improved my decision-
making ability through this exercise.
3.25 0.927 3.25 0.892 0.001 0.980
12
Overall, I was personally satisfied with the computer-mediated team decision-making process.
3.69 0.960 3.25 0.991 5.011 0.027*
13 Overall, the quality of my
computer-mediated team’s interaction was high.
3.67 1.019 3.48 1.210 0.761 0.385
*Significant at p < .05
59
Table 4.
Results in Task Performance – Hypothesis 2
Performance Asynchronous Synchronous
F-value Sig Mean SD Mean SD
Plan Time 14.28 1.250 11.92 3.484 4.348 0.052
Execution Time 1.94 0.140 2.00 0.000 1.633 0.218
Height 65.07 15.650 62.47 6.539 0.194 0.666
Cost 2,146.36 674.548 2,176.88 620.593 0.010 0.921
*Significant at p < .05
No significant differences were found among all the variables for task performance
between asynchronous and synchronous teams. The hypothesis was not supported. It
was hypothesized that asynchronous teams would have significantly lower performance
than synchronous teams. Teams that planned asynchronously did have a higher mean
time to plan (14.28 minutes), however, it was not significantly different from the
synchronous teams plan time (11.92 minutes). The communication method chosen for
the team for planning did not seem to affect their performance on the task.
Data Analyses - Changing from Asynchronous to Synchronous Teams:
Hypotheses 3 and 4
Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3 states: Teams that plan Task 1 asynchronously and then
plan Task 2 synchronously have statistically significant higher team development, as
measured by the Team Development Survey, for Task 2. Hypothesis 3 focuses on the
same type of team (Teams 1 and 2) and their differences in Team Development from
Task 1 and Task 2. The independent variable in this analysis is the Task. Each item of
60
the Team Development Survey was analyzed as dependent variable. The mean, standard
deviation, F statistic, and significance value are provided in Table 5.
Significant difference in the team’s assessment of team development between
asynchronous and synchronous planning sessions was found for only one item (item 2).
This item related to understanding the purpose of the meeting. The remaining items
showed no significant difference for the team between asynchronous and synchronous
planning on the Team Development Survey. The results of this analysis do not support
the hypothesis that there would be significant difference for the team moving from an
asynchronous to synchronous computer-mediated communication method. Team
development does not seem to increase when the team is allowed to communicate for the
second task using more “socially present” or synchronous communication. The team
development from the planning is not significantly different from one task to the other
regardless of communication method.
Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 4 states: Teams planning Task 1 asynchronously and then
planning Task 2 synchronously have statistically significant higher performance for Task
2. Hypothesis 4 examines the same type of team (Teams 1 and 2) and their differences in
Team Performance moving from Task 1 to Task 2. Teams were assessed in terms of
planning time, execution time, height, and cost which were analyzed as dependent
variables. The mean, standard deviation, F statistic, and significance value are provided
in Table 6.
61
Table 5.
Results in Team Development – Hypothesis 3
Item Item Descriptor
Task 1 Asynchronous
Task 2 Synchronous F-value Sig
Mean SD Mean SD
1 Team members can easily understand the mission of the team.
4.42 0.786 4.58 0.809 1.157 0.285
2 It is easy for team members to understand the purpose of each meeting.
3.31 1.103 4.11 0.956 16.516 0.000*
3 I felt I was really part of our team.
3.62 1.945 3.87 1.037 1.643 0.203
4
If I had to do the same work again in a computer-mediated team, I would rather stay in the same team.
3.84 0.977 3.76 0.981 0.152 0.698
5
If I had to do the same work again, I would rather join a different computer-mediated team.
2.55 1.184 2.67 1.171 0.321 0.572
6 Team members were open and frank in expressing their ideas and feelings.
4.25 0.775 4.04 0.981 1.676 0.198
7 Team members were committed to the goals and objectives of the team.
4.38 0.805 4.31 0.814 0.222 0.638
8
Team members recognized and respected individual differences and contributions during the exercise.
4.24 0.769 3.96 0.881 2.991 0.087
9 I improved my technical ability through this exercise.
3.20 0.951 3.33 0.982 0.477 0.491
10 I improved my teamwork ability through this exercise.
3.27 0.891 3.45 0.959 1.061 0.305
11 I improved my decision-making ability through this exercise.
3.25 0.927 3.36 1.008 0.379 0.539
12
Overall, I was personally satisfied with the computer-mediated team decision-making process.
3.69 0.960 3.73 1.008 0.038 0.847
13 Overall, the quality of my computer-mediated team’s interaction was high.
3.67 1.019 3.78 1.117 0.280 0.594
*Significant at p < .05
62
Table 6.
Results in Task Performance – Hypothesis 4
Performance
Task 1 Asynchronous
Task 2 Synchronous F-value Sig
Mean SD Mean SD
Plan Time 14.28 1.250 11.75 3.226 5.882 0.025*
Execution Time 1.94 0.140 1.86 0.205 1.093 0.308
Height 65.07 15.650 84.03 13.490 9.268 0.006*
Cost 2,146.36 674.548 2,181.82 476.824 0.020 0.888
*Significant at p < .05
For teams moving from a task planned asynchronously to a task planned
synchronously, there were significant differences found in performance for plan time and
height of the mast built in the exercise. With team plan time for asynchronous planning
(14.28 minutes) higher than synchronous planning (11.75 minutes), the finding supports
the hypothesis. The height of the mast for synchronous planning (84.03 inches) is
significantly higher than the mast completed with asynchronous planning (65.07 inches)
which also supports the hypothesis that synchronous computer-mediated planning will
show higher performance as compared to the team when it planned using asynchronous
planning. While two of the four measures of performance showed significant differences,
the hypothesis is not overwhelmingly supported that synchronous communication will
result in higher team performance.
Data Analyses - Changing from Synchronous to Asynchronous Teams:
Hypotheses 5 and 6
Hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 5 states: Teams that plan Task 1 synchronously and plan
Task 2 asynchronously have statistically significant lower team development, as
63
measured by the Team Development Survey, for Task 2. This hypothesis examines
Teams 3 and 4 which plan Task 1 synchronously and then change to asynchronous
planning for Task 2. The independent variable in this analysis is the Task. Each item of
the Team Development Survey was analyzed as dependent variable. The mean, standard
deviation, F statistic, and significance value are provided in Table 7.
There were no significant differences in the teams’ development items when they
planned using a synchronous computer-mediated communication method for Task 1 as
compared to the team using an asynchronous method for Task 2. The findings did not
support the hypothesis. Teams that moved from a synchronous method to an
asynchronous method did not have lower team development scores once they moved to
the asynchronous environment. As with the similar set of hypothesis above which
compared the opposite situation (teams moving from asynchronous to synchronous
conditions), these results also support that there is no difference in team development in
planning regardless of communication method. Therefore, moving from a more “socially
present” communication method to a less “socially present” communication method
appears to have no impact on the team.
Hypothesis 6. Hypothesis 6 states: For teams that plan Task 1 synchronously and
plan Task 2 asynchronously, there will be statistically significant lower performance for
Task 2. Hypothesis 6 compares performance of Teams 3 and 4 together for Task 1 versus
Task 2. Teams were assessed in terms of planning time, execution time, height, and cost
which were analyzed as dependent variables. The mean, standard deviation, F statistic,
and significance value are provided in Table 8.
64
Table 7.
Results in Team Development – Hypothesis 5
Item Item Descriptor
Task 1 Synchronous
Task 2 Asynchronous F-value Sig
Mean SD Mean SD
1 Team members can easily
understand the mission of the team.
4.09 0.858 4.25 0.751 0.857 0.357
2 It is easy for team members
to understand the purpose of each meeting.
3.48 0.952 3.68 1.095 0.874 0.352
3 I felt I was really part of
our team. 3.61 0.970 3.68 1.006 0.105 0.747
4
If I had to do the same work again in a computer-mediated team, I would rather stay in the same team.
3.32 1.052 3.57 0.900 1.436 0.234
5
If I had to do the same work again, I would rather join a different computer-mediated team.
3.02 0.952 2.73 0.949 2.125 0.149
6 Team members were open
and frank in expressing their ideas and feelings.
3.86 1.002 3.89 0.868 0.013 0.910
7 Team members were
committed to the goals and objectives of the team.
4.09 0.936 4.05 0.776 0.062 0.805
8
Team members recognized and respected individual differences and contributions during the exercise.
3.95 0.987 3.59 0.787 3.650 0.059
9 I improved my technical
ability through this exercise. 2.91 0.910 2.91 0.884 0.000 1.000
10 I improved my teamwork
ability through this exercise. 3.41 0.787 3.09 0.960 2.890 0.093
11 I improved my decision-
making ability through this exercise.
3.25 0.892 3.23 0.831 0.015 0.902
12
Overall, I was personally satisfied with the computer-mediated team decision-making process.
3.25 0.991 3.25 1.222 0.000 1.000
13 Overall, the quality of my
computer-mediated team’s interaction was high.
3.48 1.210 3.32 1.196 0.385 0.537
*Significant at p < .05
65
Table 8.
Results in Task Performance – Hypothesis 6
Performance
Task 1 Synchronous
Task 2 Asynchronous F-value Sig
Mean SD Mean SD
Plan Time 11.92 3.484 12.50 3.062 0.126 0.728
Execution Time 2.00 0.000 1.70 0.335 6.527 0.023*
Height 62.47 6.539 71.88 10.480 4.638 0.049*
Cost 2,176.88 620.593 1,994.38 686.104 0.311 0.586
*Significant at p < .05
There were significant findings for two variables of task performance. The teams
planned Task 1 synchronously and then planned Task 2 asynchronously. The hypothesis
was that the teams would see a lower performance for Task 2. However, despite the
significant differences between Task 1 and Task 2, the findings do not support the
hypothesis as task execution time was lower for asynchronous planning (Task 2), yet the
height was higher for asynchronous planning (Task 2) as compared to Task 1. Overall,
the findings do not demonstrate lower performance for asynchronous planning.
Therefore, the hypothesis is not supported. As with the results seen with team
development, there are no differences seen in teams that move from one communication
method to another. Thus, communication method having more or less social presence
does not have an impact on performance.
Data Analyses - Synchronous versus Face-to-Face Team Performance: Hypothesis 7
Hypothesis 7. Hypothesis 7 states: Teams that execute Task 1 and Task 2 face-to-
face have statistically significant higher performance as compared to teams that execute
Task 1 and Task 2 synchronously. Hypothesis 7 focuses entirely on differences in task
66
execution. This analysis was performed for Task 1 and then for Task 2 (comparing the
performance of face-to-face versus synchronous task execution). Teams were assessed in
terms of planning time, execution time, height, and cost which were analyzed as
dependent variables. The mean, standard deviation, F statistic, and significance value are
provided. See Tables 9 and 10 below for the results.
Table 9.
Results Task Performance on Task 1 – Hypothesis 7
Performance Synchronous Face-to-Face
F-value Sig Mean SD Mean SD
Plan Time 13.72 3.182 12.80 1.975 0.561 0.464
Execution Time 1.93 0.147 2.00 0.010 1.676 0.213
Height 63.68 7.855 64.31 16.669 0.012 0.916
Cost 2,383.50 547.905 1,910.00 668.170 2.917 0.106
*Significant at p < .05
Table 10.
Results Task Performance on Task 2 – Hypothesis 7
Performance Synchronous Face-to-Face
F-value Sig Mean SD Mean SD
Plan Time 2.15 3.409 11.97 2.906 0.016 0.901
Execution Time 1.90 0.209 1.67 0.293 3.749 0.070
Height 79.88 12.852 77.85 14.863 0.102 0.754
Cost 2,428.00 290.796 1,741.67 585.144 10.837 0.004*
*Significant at p < .05
The tasks themselves were performed using either synchronous computer-mediated
communication or traditional face-to-face methods. The only significant difference
found between teams is cost on Task 2. The cost is significantly higher for the mast built
using the synchronous communication method versus face-to-face. Overall, however, the
67
hypothesis is not supported by these findings since more variables of performance were
not shown to be significantly different. The findings demonstrate that using a
synchronous computer-mediated communication method (video conferencing) as
opposed to a traditional face-to-face do not seem to have an impact on the team
performing the task at hand.
Summary
As stated previously, the purpose of this study is to examine the differences between
types of teams which communicate using forms of asynchronous and synchronous
communications. The teams planned and executed two tasks using either asynchronous
or synchronous methods to communicate for planning and either synchronous or face-to-
face methods to execute their plans. Measure of team development and performance
were obtained. Team development was assessed after planning was completed for each
task. Performance was measured after each respective task was completed. To evaluate
differences in team type by development and performance, analyses of variance were
conducted. There were seven hypotheses examined and findings of the analyses were
highlighted.
There were some differences by team type for both development and performance.
However, while there were significant differences found, there were not multiple
differences found which would support the particular hypothesis. For example, while
there were significant differences on the Team Development Survey in examining the
first hypothesis, the differences were on the majority, showing higher development scores
for asynchronous than synchronous teams which was in opposite direction of the
hypothesis. Overall, there are little differences between synchronous and asynchronous
68
computer-mediated teams in both teams development during the planning as well as team
performance of the tasks assigned. The implication for teams using computer-mediated
communications is that regardless of communication media used, the team development
and performance should be similar.
This chapter discussed the data collection and analysis used in this study of
computer-mediated teams. Chapter 5 will interpret the data further as well as suggest the
additional implications these findings on current and future research. It will also discuss
limitations of this study and the generalizibility of the research results.
69
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
Organizations around the world are increasingly using teams whose membership is
not necessarily confined by geographic location. Distributed team members carry many
benefits such as providing a broader scope of experienced personnel and lessen the
concern about re-locating members if they can communicate using some type of
computer-mediated medium (DeLuca & Valacich, 2006; Postmes et al., 2002).
Computer-mediated communications, however, vary by the amount of social presence
allowed by virtue of the technologies. Social proximity or feelings of social presence are
important for team development and overcoming team conflicts (Maruping & Agarwal,
2002).
Organizations are, thus, in need of understanding the impact of choices within
communication medium for distributed team communication (i.e., team member
development and performance). The research problem addressed in this study focuses on
the Air Force’s Distributed Mission Operations whereby team members must plan and
execute task(s) using various methods for communication. There are questions as to
whether the type of computer-mediated communication has an impact on the team.
Communications can be conducted through synchronous (face-to-face or electronically
via real-time video/audio), asynchronous (electronically via text-based chat), or a
combination of technologies. Some types of communication (synchronous) allow social
presence to be felt by team members, while others (asynchronous) do not. In addition, it
is not clear whether initial use of more “social present” or video communication with
visually-available cues is warranted. Some findings suggest that initial interaction with
70
social presence is sufficient in establishing the development of teams and impacts their
performance (Franz, 1999).
The significance of this study is that the results will help organizations understand
the importance of choosing the most effective and cost-efficient communication
technologies when using distributed teams. With distributed mission operations for
aircrew training providing an opportunity to reduce costs associated with face-to-face
training, the findings of a study such as this one will have a positive impact on the
decisions made in terms of the communication methods chosen (or mixture of those
methods).. With so many organizations using distributed teams, the military is not alone
in wanting to understand the impact of communication media on team development and
performance which will determine future investments into technologies offering the latest
capabilities.
Findings and Data Interpretation
Findings of Literature Review
The literature reviewed for this study focused on the importance found on social
interactions and social dynamics for teams to perform and function in an optimal manner.
Researchers recognize that teams are not merely a gathering of individuals, but
individuals brought together for a purpose and a clearly-defined goal (Winum &
Seamons, 2000). An increasingly inherent aspect of forming teams is to involve
members from across an organization, no matter where they are located. With one of the
traditional constructs for team development being physical proximity (Pinto et al., 1993),
researchers must now consider the impact of this proximity being distanced (both in
distance and time) and understand the impact on team development and performance.
71
Literature on the advantages and disadvantages of computer-mediated teams were
reviewed. With studies on computer-mediated teams being mixed, it is important to
understand the outcomes of all research conducted on such teams. Teams that are
distributed and communicating through use of technology can take advantage of the
ability to accomplish tasks without the restraint of time or place. They can bring in
varied resources to use appropriate expertise at the needed time. Interaction among
members appears uninhibited by the social strains seen with traditional face-to-face teams
(McGuire et al., 1987) which has been seen to improve the quality of team decision
making (McLeod et al., 1997). Tasks such as brainstorming activities are seen to be
better achieved by computer-mediated teams (Dennis & Valacich, 1993; Kerr & Murthy,
2004). The issues surrounding computer-mediated teams, however, revolve around the
lack of physical presence. Teams feel low commitment, role confusion, less cohesion,
and lack of team identity (Thatcher & DeLaCour, 2003; Maruping & Agarwal, 2004).
The literature concerning computer-mediated teams also includes related theories
which have provided the basis for studies of such teams in the past. There have been
many examinations on the selection of media, more particularly focused on the task types
associated with the teams and the selection of media. While theories such as task-
technology-fit are not very specific beyond emphasizing the importance of examining a
team’s task requirements and technology limitations (Colquitt et al., 2002; Kerr &
Murthy, 2004; Maruping & Agarwal, 2004), it has proven useful in guiding organizations
to consider if certain types of teams would be capable candidates for distributed
performance.
72
Additional theories related to computer-mediated communication examine
“richness” or “naturalness” of communication media which is a direct comparison to
traditional face-to-face communications. Little mention of the aspect of social presence
has been included in such research and discussions. In addition, there are no valid
instruments developed to quantify social presence due to its complex nature, although
some measures are proving to be “first steps’ in determining members’ perceptions
within mediated environments (Manes, 2008).
With so much focus on choosing communication media to be as “rich” in terms of
visual feedback as traditional face-to-face interactions, the topic of social presence is very
relevant to the discussion of computer-mediated teams and the selection of media. Social
presence theory, as a reminder, simply advocates that social presence is being aware of
communication with others and not just an inanimate object (Short, 1976). Clearly,
richness of media, such as that which is provided in more synchronous media, is a factor
in providing social presence. However, when organizations employ a mixture of
technologies ranging by the amount of richness and social presence is still important,
there remains a question as to how much social presence and at what time social presence
is introduced impacts the actual development and performance of a team.
Findings of this Research
This study compared computer-mediated teams using different methods of
communication in terms of both team development and member performance. The focus
of this research centered upon the examination of the influence of social presence by
comparing teams that first used synchronous computer-mediated communication to plan
a task and then used asynchronous communication to plan a second task to teams who did
73
the opposite (asynchronous communication for initial interaction and synchronous
communication for second planning exercise). Participants were randomly assigned to
different types of teams. They were all asked to plan and execute two separate tasks.
After planning the tasks using the assigned communication method, team members were
given the Team Development Survey (a version used by Xue et al., 2005). After
executing the task, teams were measure for their performance by the plan time, height,
execution time, and cost of the Tall Ships™ material.
Overall, there were seven hypotheses in this study that were examined. The
hypotheses focused on both team development as well as performance of the teams.
Generally, it was hypothesized that synchronous communication teams would show
significantly higher team development and performance because of the “richness” of the
communication and social presence offered by the visual nature of the synchronous
communication media. In addition, because teams changed communication media from
one task to the next, teams were also compared across Task 1 and Task 2 in terms of their
development and performance. It was hypothesized that those teams planning
asynchronously for their first task and planning synchronously for their second task
would see significant difference between them. A similar set of hypotheses were
developed for teams planning and performing in an opposite manner (planning
synchronously for their first task and planning asynchronously for their second task).
The same hypotheses were established which would state that there would be difference
between tasks seen in both development and performance.
The findings of this research will be discussed in terms of sets of hypotheses and the
issues upon which they focused. The findings center upon these areas: (a) synchronous
74
versus asynchronous teams (Hypotheses 1 and 2), (b) changing from asynchronous to
synchronous teams (Hypotheses 3 and 4), changing from synchronous to asynchronous
teams (Hypotheses 5 and 6), and synchronous versus face-to-face team performance
(Hypothesis 7).
Synchronous versus Asynchronous Teams
Hypotheses 1 and 2 examined teams on both development and performance for Task
1 and compared those teams assigned an asynchronous communication method for
planning versus synchronous communication method for planning. In examining the
results for the Test Development Survey, there were five items which showed significant
differences between asynchronous and synchronous teams. While the hypothesis stated
that synchronous teams were expected to have higher development than asynchronous
members, team members planning asynchronously rated higher agreement on a number
of items. Asynchronous teams thought that their team members were open and frank,
were satisfied with the decision process, and agreed that their team’s interaction was
high. Conversely, synchronous teams rated higher agreement on the item that they would
join a different computer-mediated team. There was no significant difference in
performance between asynchronous or synchronous teams performing Task 1.
The findings here are similar to those found by researchers such as Dennis and
Valacich (1993) which dispelled the belief that asynchronous electronic media is not an
effective communication vehicle for teams. It does lend support that depending on the
type of task, for example, idea-generation (Dennis and Valacich, 1993; Straus and
McGrath, 1994) or planning as demonstrated in this study, an asynchronous team can be
as productive as a face-to-face or socially-present synchronous team. With asynchronous
75
team members believing the communication was open and interaction high, there is more
support that an asynchronous environment lends itself for more equal participation
among its members. Despite the other team having the element of social presence, the
asynchronous team demonstrated a tendency to be satisfied with the planning process in
terms of decisions and communication freedom. As seen by others (McGuire et al.,
1987; Postmes et al., 2002; McLeod et al., 1997; Stone & Posey, 2005), communication
with less social presence actually leads to more open and free-flowing communication
including the assumptions that social inhibitions are released.
The type of task is an important element to consider for computer-mediated
communication. Depending upon the task requirements of the team, choice of
communication media impacts performance of that team. In this study, team members
had to come up with a plan to build the highest “mast” using the Tall Ships™ material.
Members had a finite number of each type of piece that could be used. The challenge for
these teams, on the majority, was to develop a good base out of the material so that the
structure would not fall.
According to Task-Technology Fit theory, a team must not only generate ideas but
should also distinguish from relevant and irrelevant ideas (Kerr & Murthy, 2004). And,
as tasks require more and more coordination and consensus, certain computer-mediated
communications are viewed as a less-than-suitable (Straus and McGrath, 1994). When
relating Task Technology Fit or Media Richness theories on the surface, the results of
this research would be supported as tasks such as brainstorming are considered to be
suitable for asynchronous communications (Kerr & Murthy, 2004). It has been found
that more complex tasks, such as negotiation, require a broad range of communication
76
media (Scheck, Allmendinger, & Hammann, 2008) including a mix of socially present
technologies versus non-socially present.
However, it has also been found that computer-mediated communications support
tasks beyond brainstorming, such as problem solving, to elicit more focused, on-task
“conversation” (Jonassen, 2001). In planning the task for this study, the teams used the
text-based medium to evaluate the alternatives, so there were some decisions to make
beyond brainstorming and having ideas thrown arbitrarily in the discussions. The
planning for these tasks were focused and were less subject to having communications
intermixed that was off topic. Although, with no differences seen in performance both in
planning time and height of the structure created, it is difficult to see the impact of
asynchronous communication.
While the task in this research may have been very focused and defined for the team
members, planning can become a more arduous task confounded by many factors. Klien
and Miller (1999) believe planning’s important function is to solve a problem and are
influenced by many factors including time pressure, scarcity of resources, available
expertise, task structure, and uncertainty. Some issues around computer-mediated
teamwork and the planning process are impacted by similar factors such as time, which is
relevant for all types of teams regardless of communication method. However, when
researchers assess differences in computer-mediated teams using asynchronous
communications versus traditional face-to-face interactions, they find that computer-
mediated teams have issues in establishing mutual knowledge or generating satisfaction
with decisions (Driskell, Radtke, & Salas, 2003; Thompson & Coovert, 2003).
77
While it has been noted that computer-mediated teams have been seen to be hindered
in their performance, issues can fade over time as a team works together (Berry, 2006).
However, for requirements such as planning, there are typically time constraints. In this
study, the teams did not plan for more than fifteen minutes, and there were no significant
differences found between asynchronous and synchronous teams in terms of time to plan.
If computer-mediated teams need more time to work together, it is unclear if planning for
a defined task, as used in this study, is not affected by time regardless of communication
method. If all other factors affecting planning (structure of task, expertise, availability of
resources) are well supported, it is not apparent if the issues found with distributed
communication are minimized in a short duration interaction.
Media Synchronicity Theory would not support these findings as they relate to task
complexity. The planning activity in this study is an important subtask for the teams
working together to complete the Tall Ships™ exercise. Media Synchronicity Theory
suggests that to successfully use media to complete a task, there must be an assessment of
the communication needed (DeLuca & Valacich, 2006). Communications can be viewed
from the perspective of needing to simply relay information or actually process
information. The planning activity in this study required that team members process
information given in terms of the materials and the objective of the task and come to
agreement as to how to accomplish the task. Seen as a “convergent” process, media of
higher synchronicity would be expected to provide the team better communication and
more satisfaction. However, some have argued that there is an alternate discussion of
Media Synchronicity which demonstrates that virtual teams adapt to less socially present
media and ultimately produce more focused, precise, persuasive communications
78
(DeLuca & Valacich, 2006). So, while media differences are a consideration, there must
not be a dismissal of team member behavior and adaptation within the media
environment.
Changing from Asynchronous to Synchronous Teams
In examining the same team moving from Task 1 to Task 2 but changing their
method of communication from asynchronous to synchronous, Hypotheses 3 and 4
suggested that Teams 1 and 2 would have higher team development and performance for
Task 2, as compared to Task 1, because of the benefits of the richness of synchronous
communication. Researchers put forth that synchronous (or those communications
accomplished through video-teleconferencing) may not be as “natural” as face-to-face
interactions, but synchronous media does allow for cues (verbal or non-verbal) to be
shared (Chapman, Uggerslev, & Webster, 2003). As such, moving to synchronous
communication was expected to show such benefits.
For the Team Development Survey, one item saw significant differences between the
team’s responses from Task 1 as compared to Task 2. This item referred to team
members agreeing that it was easier for them to understand the purpose of the meeting.
Team members reported higher agreement in understanding their purpose in planning
Task 2 than Task 1. Thus, agreement of understanding was higher when the team moved
to a synchronous environment. Despite the significance found in team member ratings,
however, this could be a function of having participated in Task 1 and moving onto Task
2, therefore already knowing the purpose of the team meeting for planning. Yet, the
findings are supported by researchers in the field of computer-mediated communication
with “sense of understanding” noted as the extent the communication medium is
79
conveying accurately the members’ thoughts and facilitating mutual understanding
among team members (Lim & Hung, 2008).
Distributed teams have been known to have difficulty developing a shared context
and understanding of the task issues. Teams that would normally be distributed conduct
traditional face-to-face meetings to establish shared context and improve coordination
(Hinds & Bailey, 2003). Because of its visual component, using synchronous
communication methods may instill a sense of “being on the same page” or “agreement”
among team members when planning for a task. However, some report that adding video
to an audio-only computer-mediated communication does little to improve
communication and may be due to poor use of video-based technology (Ehsan, Mirza, &
Ahmad, 2008). Thus, the overall lack of significant findings in adding a video
component to the team planning in the second task may indicate issues in team use of the
technology or lessen the importance of visual presence.
There were two areas where significant differences were found in examining
performance. The first difference was in plan time which showed that the teams took a
significantly longer time planning for Task 1 (asynchronous) versus Task 2
(synchronous). Secondly, the height of the structure created for Task 2 (planning
synchronous) was significantly higher than the one created for Task 1 (planning
asynchronous). It has been advocated that the introduction of social presence plays an
important role in influencing task-oriented discussions and social communications in
virtual project teams (Lim & Hung, 2008). In addition, the characteristics of the task
itself provided an opportunity for the team to perform well using either asynchronous or
synchronous methods for planning. The discussions during planning and performance of
80
the Tall Ships™ task were not complex in nature. Media Richness Theory puts forth that
the ability for information to be carried is dependent upon the richness of media used to
carry it. Therefore, with the planning and tasks in this exercise being low in complexity,
the choice of asynchronous or synchronous media may be an arbitrary one. It fact, it has
been found that media in low richness is suitable for facilitating simple discussions (Irem
& Dambra, 2004). In addition, it has been noted that computer-mediated teams’ use of
audio versus video do not impact communication because it is believed that transmission
of social cues may hold less meaning in a newly formed team, such as the ones used in
this research (Ehsan et al., 2008).
Changing from Synchronous to Asynchronous Teams
Hypotheses 5 and 6 examined the differences of development and performance
between Task 1 and Task 2 for teams which first used synchronous communication and
then switched to asynchronous communication. Because of the introduction of more rich
communication media in the first task, it was put forth by this set of hypotheses that the
teams would have significantly lower team development and performance for Task 2 as
compared to Task 1. There were no differences from the Team Development Survey for
the teams as they planned for Task 1 and Task 2.
With synchronous communication, it is advocated that members’ connectivity, or
sense of connection, is developed with the presence component of the technology (Lim &
Hung, 2008). It is unclear if this connectivity is carried over from one task to another
despite the communication medium of the second task. Team members have experienced
visual contact with other team members from the first task. Therefore, when faced with
an asynchronous communication medium, the lack of presence may not be necessary to
81
accomplish additional tasks. Bos, Gergle, Olson, & Olson (2001) saw that computer-
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]
112
APPENDIX B MATERIAL COST SHEET
Team: Task 1 Task 2
Part: Unit Cost # Units
Total Init Cost
# Units Total Unit Cost
Orange Rod $100
Purple Rod $75
Blue Rod $50
Red Rod $35
Green Rod $25
Blue Spool $75
Yellow Spool $50
Purple Connector $50
Blue Connector $50
Total Cost
113
APPENDIX C TASK PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET
Task 1 Task 2
Team Type
Plan Time
1
Exec Time
1
Height
1
Cost
1
Plan Time
2
Exec Time
2
Height
2
Cost
2