factors of social influence in virtual multicultural teams iris fischlmayr, assistant professor...
TRANSCRIPT
Factors of Social Influence in Virtual Multicultural Teams
Iris Fischlmayr, Assistant professorJohannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria
Satu Lähteenmäki, ProfessorTurku School of Economics, Turku, Finland
Eeli Saarinen, Researcher Turku School of Economics, Turku, Finland
Timo Lainema, Professor (acting) Turku School of Economics, Turku, Finland
IAREP/SABE 2008 – Conference2008, Sept. 3rd – 6th, Rome
2
WHY THIS TOPIC?
Virtual Teams are a common and increasing form of collaboration in our modern world
A lot of research has been done on social influence in traditional teams – but are the findings also applicable to virtual ones?
There is already some research on social influences on virtual teams but still little on group processes
Research on VTs is focused to trust, conflict management and inter-personal processes – only little on social integration and group relations
3
VIRTUAL TEAM (adapted from Lipnack & Snell, 2000)
= a group of knowledge workers who aregeographically and/or organizationally, but many times also temporally dispersed and brought together across time and space by the help of ICT to work together on important tasks while physically remaining apart.
All the networking (i.e. communicating, gathering and sharing information, collaborating and making decisions) primarily takes place without face-to-face contact of the team members
4
Results related to Group Processes in Virtual Teams (VTs) are conflicting
1. Commitment and feeling of belongingness in VTs lower than in traditional teams (~ sign of lower group cohesion)
But:2. VTs reach high quality decisions
due to being more creative and having more ideas and solutions
3. VTs are more satisfied with their outcome
5
Suggested explanations refer to the different nature of VTs
Higher and more open-minded participation in the communication process Less process losses in the communication process due to computer-mediated communication No symbols of power => more equal possibilities to contribute Task-focus rather than internal relations Tendency to take higher risks due to lower commitment Lack of social loafing due to lack of social pressure Experts with willingness for e-collaboration and independence
6
Social Influence
… process of changing the thinking and behavior of other individuals
Examples:- Do members of one team tend to have
similar attitudes and behavior?- How do single persons succeed in
convincing a whole group?- Why are individuals who do not behave
according to group norms rejected by their team mates?
7
Main Factors of Social Influence
Normalization: change of individual behavior that leads to change of others´ behavior => creates norms
Majority Influence / Conformity: team members behave according to norms and rules in order not to break ranks. Conformity is integration in a group, different opinion means being an outsider
Minority Influence: single persons influence a group by constantly emphasizing a different opinion than the
others
Groupthink: conformity and group cohesion end up in consentaneity (“Groupthink”)
8
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Can better performance of VTs be explained by social influence?
Are the processes of social influence identified in traditional teams applicable to virtual teams?
What role do normalization, majority/minority influence, conformity and groupthink play on differences noticed in virtual team performance?
9
Data Gathering
Experimental design• Virtual and face-to-face teams • Business students in Linz and Turku • Business simulation game (RealGame™)• Multicultural composition • Negotiation and decision making • CEOs – subcontractors – producers• Communication via Skype, e-mail, face-to-face if possible• RealGame™- Training session - RealGame™
Data• Observation during the game • Diary kept during the game • Reflective essays written after the game
10
Reflective Essays and Analysis
Reflective Essays• Reflexion about experiences, learnings, critical incidents• Issues covered, among others, group processes, decision making, power distribution, group cohesion• 3-5 pages• Approx. 60 teams and more than 400 essays
Grounded theory method • Line-by-line coding of reflective essays• Meanings, explanations, situational and contextual factors• Focus on critical incidents
=> Finding out more about social factors influencing team work “directly in the field”
11
First Results (1)
Subgroups of VT‘s (i.e. on-site teams sitting at one location, possibilty of making face-to-face contact)
Striving for establishment of norms (structuring of tasks) – but norms were not valid in main team Tried to conform in decision making and power- related questions Majority influence and striving for conformity (e.g. single opinions have been adapted during the process, no nomination of a leader) Influenced by virtual working environment as by adopting working norms from teams working on a virtual basis
12
First Results (2)
Virtual Teams
Avoiding conflict as main aim => normalization as a consequence More tolerance for different opinions and working habits Strive for conformity (external adaptation – internalization?) Refrained themselves from steep opinions in order to enhance team cohesion Divided groupthink (no „we“ and „us“ for talking about team but „we“ and „they“, divided by geographical location) Lower group cohesion than subgroups due to limited and irregular (resp. asynchronous) contact
13
Discussion (1)
High group cohesion among subteams, low (but still existing) cohesion in virtual team
No social loafing
Groupthink above all observable in subgroups, not in virtual teams
Majority or minority influence did not occur
Normalization and strive for conformity could be stated
14
Conclusion
High tolerance for diversity / status differences in VTs (national culture, organizational culture, language) BUT still striving for conformity (at least at the surface)
Do status differences vanish in VTs?
Social influence is occuring in a weakened form only
Do VTs have less process losses and thus, better performance?